do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10403 — SHV/ACTA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 358/02
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, international organisation, investment company, merger control, parent company, product quality, quality standard








C_2021358EN.01001301.xml










7.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/13






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10403 — SHV/ACTA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 358/02)
On 1 September 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 32021M10403. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-517/19: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Homoki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Final report of the OLAF investigation into the implementation of a street-lighting investment project in Hungary — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Protection of personal data)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Hungary, access to EU information, data protection, investment project, personal data, protection of privacy, report








C_2021422EN.01001101.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/11






Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Homoki v Commission
(Case T-517/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Final report of the OLAF investigation into the implementation of a street-lighting investment project in Hungary - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Protection of personal data)
(2021/C 422/15)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Andrea Homoki (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: T. Hüttl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Béres and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 22 May 2019 rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents in accordance with 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).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Decision No OCM(2019)11506 of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 22 May 2019, in so far as it refused to grant access to the final report of the OLAF investigation in Case No OF/2015/0034/B4, with any personal data concerning witnesses, internal notes and references to OLAF’s methods redacted;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Case C-131/21: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 1 September 2021 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — criminal proceedings against KI (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Ne bis in idem principal — Cumulation of penalties — Nature of a police sanction — Implementation of national law — Lack of connection to EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, application of the law, fine, imprisonment, jurisdiction, public prosecution, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2021471EN.01001401.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/14






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 1 September 2021 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — criminal proceedings against KI
(Case C-131/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Ne bis in idem principal - Cumulation of penalties - Nature of a police sanction - Implementation of national law - Lack of connection to EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
(2021/C 471/18)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Party in the main proceedings

KI

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Central District Court, Buda, Hungary) by decision of 10 February 2021.


(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Case T-534/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — VP v Cedefop
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, damages, equal treatment, full-time employment, indemnification, work contract








C_2021431EN.01004701.xml










25.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 431/47






Action brought on 1 September 2021 — VP v Cedefop
(Case T-534/21)
(2021/C 431/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VP (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision not to implement sections (1) and (2) of the operational part of the judgment of the GCEU, of 16 December 2020, in case T-187/18, VP v Cedefop;










—


annul the connected decision not to renew the applicant’s employment contract for an indefinite period with retroactive effect;










—


order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant evaluated ex aequo et bono to fifty thousand Euros;










—


order the compensation of the material damage incurred by the applicant equal to the cost of the necessary pre-litigation procedure from the date of the judgment in Case T-187/18, VP v Cedefop; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s decision not to implement the core sections (1) and (2) of the judgment of 16 December 2020 in case T-187/20, VP v Cedefop and, consequently, not to renew the employment contract of the applicant is vitiated by a violation of the obligation to state reasons;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed its obligation to duty of care.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations.










4.


Forth plea in law, alleging that the defendant misused its powers.
Case T-566/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Palladium Gestión (PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH — Earlier national trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM — Relative Ground for refusal — Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, hotel industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01001501.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/15






Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Residencial Palladium v EUIPO — Palladium Gestión (PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH)
(Case T-566/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PALLADIUM HOTEL GARDEN BEACH - Earlier national trade name GRAND HOTEL PALLADIUM - Relative Ground for refusal - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 422/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Residencial Palladium, SL (Ibiza, Spain) (represented by: D. Solana Giménez, lawyer)

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

Intervener before the General Court, authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Palladium Gestión, SL (Ibiza) (represented by: J. Rojo García-Lajara, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2020 (Case R 1542/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Residencial Palladium and Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Authorises Palladium Gestión, SL to replace Fiesta Hotels & Resorts, SL as intervener;










2.


Dismisses the action;










3.


Orders Residencial Palladium, SL to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Palladium Gestión.






(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Case T-561/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Vita — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audio cassette, magnetic medium, optical medium, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, video cassette








C_2021422EN.01001402.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/14






Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)
(Case T-561/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Vita - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark was registered)
(2021/C 422/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and P. Ruess, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 (Case R 425/2020-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Vieta Audio and Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 3.11.2020.
Case T-23/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — FF IP v EUIPO — Seven (the DoubleF) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark the DoubleF — Earlier EU word mark THE DOUBLE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Relevant public — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, animal skin, electronic commerce, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01001202.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/12






Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — FF IP v EUIPO — Seven (the DoubleF)
(Case T-23/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark the DoubleF - Earlier EU word mark THE DOUBLE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Relevant public - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 422/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: FF IP Srl (Mantua, Italy) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico and E. Tonello, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 (Case R 2588/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Seven and FF IP.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Dismisses Seven SpA’s application for refusal of registration of the European Union figurative mark the DoubleF for goods in Class 18 and services in Class 35;










3.


Orders FF IP Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case T-537/21: Action brought on 1 September 2021 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01003202.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/32






Action brought on 1 September 2021 — bett1.de v EUIPO — XXXLutz Marken (BODY STAR)
(Case T-537/21)
(2021/C 422/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: bett1.de GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Brexl, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria)

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 EU word mark BODY STAR — Application for registration No 18 023 614

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2021 in Joined Cases R 1711/2020-2 and R 1727/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-806/19 P: Order of the President of the Court of 1 September 2021 — European Commission v HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Continental Europe, formerly HSBC France
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Euribor, cartel, confidentiality, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, euro, exchange of information, interest, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2021471EN.01003102.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/31






Order of the President of the Court of 1 September 2021 — European Commission v HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Continental Europe, formerly HSBC France
(Case C-806/19 P) (1)

(2021/C 471/39)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10381 — One Rock Capital/The Eastman Tire Additives business of Eastman Chemical Company) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 384/01
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: adjuvant, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pneumatic tyre








C_2021384EN.01000101.xml










22.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 384/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10381 — One Rock Capital/The Eastman Tire Additives business of Eastman Chemical Company)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 384/01)
On 1 September 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 32021M10381. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-96/20: Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Limbic® Types — Absolute grounds for refusal — Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court — Referral of the case back to the Grand Board of Appeal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Error of law — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Res judicata — Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Composition of the Grand Board of Appeal)
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, education, paper, paperboard, personnel administration, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021422EN.01001301.xml










18.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/13






Judgment of the General Court of 1 September 2021 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)
(Case T-96/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Limbic® Types - Absolute grounds for refusal - Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court - Referral of the case back to the Grand Board of Appeal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Error of law - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Res judicata - Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Composition of the Grand Board of Appeal)
(2021/C 422/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2019 (Case R 1276/2017-G), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Types as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2019 (Case R 1276/2017-G);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10261 — USTC/CM Biomass Partners) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 370/02
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: biomass, economic concentration, harbour installation, logistics, maritime shipping, merger control, provision of services, risk management, tanker, wood product








C_2021370EN.01000201.xml










15.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 370/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10261 — USTC/CM Biomass Partners)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 370/02)
On 1 September 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 32021M10261. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-78/20: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 1 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Generálna prokuratura Slovenskej republiky v M.B.
Date: 2021-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, criminal proceedings, disclosure of information, judicial review








C_2021471EN.01003201.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/32






Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 1 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Generálna prokuratura Slovenskej republiky v M.B.
(Case C-78/20) (1)

(2021/C 471/41)
Language of the case: Slovak
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 137, 27.4.2020.