do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions at its meeting on 17 November 2021 concerning a draft Decision in case AT.40127 – Canned vegetables Rapporteur: Ireland (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 412/03
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, exchange of information, market-sharing agreement, preserved product, price agreement, sanction (EU), trade information, vegetable








C_2022412EN.01000301.xml










27.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/3






Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions at its meeting on 17 November 2021 concerning a draft Decision
in case AT.40127 – Canned vegetables
Rapporteur: Ireland
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 412/03)

1.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (eight Member States) agree with the Commission that the anti-competitive behaviour covered by the draft Decision constitutes an agreement and/or concerted practice between undertakings within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



2.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (eight Member States) agree with the Commission that the object of the agreement and/or concerted practice was to restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101 of the TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.



3.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (eight Member States) agree with the Commission’s assessment as regards the duration of the infringement.



4.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (eight Member States) agree with the Commission’s draft Decision as regards the addressees.



5.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (eight Member States) agree with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft Decision for the infringement in which they were involved.



6.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (eight Member States) agree with the Commission on the final amount of the fine, based on the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the 2006 Leniency Notice.



7.   

The members of the Advisory Committee (eight Member States) recommend the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-688/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 17 November 2021 — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier minister, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cultivation techniques, environmental protection, genetically modified organism, health risk








C_2022037EN.01001901.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 17 November 2021 — Confédération paysanne and Others v Premier minister, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation
(Case C-688/21)
(2022/C 37/26)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM: dangers, Vigilance OGM 33

Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Intervener: Fédération française des producteurs d’oléagineux et de protéagineux

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, (1) read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive and in the light of recital 17 of the Directive, to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to distinguish from amongst techniques/methods of mutagenesis those techniques/methods which have conventionally been used in a number of applications and have a long safety record, within the meaning of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2018, consideration need be given only to the methods by which the mutageneous agent modifies the genetic material of the organism, or must account be taken of all the variations in the organism induced by the process used, including somaclonal variations, which may affect human health and the environment?










2.


Is Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001, read in conjunction with point 1 of Annex I B to that directive and in the light of recital 17 of the Directive, to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a technique/method of mutagenesis has conventionally been used in a number of applications and has a long safety record, within the meaning of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2018, account need be taken only of open field cultivation of the organisms obtained using that method/technique, or may account also be taken of research work and publications that do not relate to such cultivation and, in relation to that work and those publications, is consideration to be given only to work and publications relating to risks for human health or the environment?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
Case T-616/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect — Earlier EU word mark ONE — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court — Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Res judicata)
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal feedingstuffs, dietary product, pet food, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2022024EN.01003301.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/33






Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Amigüitos pets & life (THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect)
(Case T-616/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark THE ONLY ONE by alphaspirit wild and perfect - Earlier EU word mark ONE - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Decision taken following the annulment of an earlier decision by the General Court - Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Res judicata)
(2022/C 24/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: G. Sakalaitė-Orlovskienė and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Amigüitos pets & life, SA (Lorca, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2020 (Case R 424/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Société des produits Nestlé and Amigüitos pets & life.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 July 2020 (Case R 424/2020-5);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;










3.


Orders Amigüitos pets & life, SA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
Corrigendum to Directorate-General Research and Innovation – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Principal Adviser – President of the Board of the European Innovation Council (Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14) – COM/2021/10408 (OJ C 432 A, 26.10.2021)
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), executive agency, innovation, job vacancy, president of an institution, recruitment, servant (EU)








CA2021464EN.01000101.xml










17.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CA 464/1






Corrigendum to Directorate-General Research and Innovation – Publication of a vacancy for the function of Principal Adviser – President of the Board of the European Innovation Council
(Temporary Agent – Grade AD 14)
COM/2021/10408
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 432 A of 26 October 2021
)
(2021/C 464 A/01)
On page 5, under ‘Closing date’, first paragraph:







for:




‘The closing date for registration is 26 November 2021, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’,












read:




‘The closing date for registration is 17 December 2021, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’.
Case C-602/20: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘AKZ — Burgas’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Burgas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security contributions — Repayment of contributions wrongly paid — Limitation of interest on repayment — National procedural autonomy — Principle of equivalence — Principle of effectiveness — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interest, social-security contribution








C_2022095EN.01000202.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/2






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘AKZ — Burgas’ EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Burgas
(Case C-602/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security contributions - Repayment of contributions wrongly paid - Limitation of interest on repayment - National procedural autonomy - Principle of equivalence - Principle of effectiveness - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2022/C 95/03)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘AKZ — Burgas’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Burgas

Intervener: Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Varhoven administrativen sad (Supreme Administrative Court, Bulgaria) by decision of 30 September 2020 is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 28, 25.1.2021.
Case T-734/21: Action brought on 17 November 2021 — The Chord Company v EUIPO — AVSL Group (CHORD)
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, musical instrument, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022037EN.01004501.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/45






Action brought on 17 November 2021 — The Chord Company v EUIPO — AVSL Group (CHORD)
(Case T-734/21)
(2022/C 37/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: The Chord Company Ltd (Wiltshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Deutsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AVSL Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom)

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 CHORD — European Union trade mark No 8 254 229

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 August 2021 in Case R 1664/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and/or the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant for the General Court, appeal and the cancellation proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Article 27(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 and Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the right to be heard pursuant to article 94(1) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-504/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Manòu — Earlier national and international word marks MANOU — 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) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks)
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2022024EN.01003001.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/30






Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Soapland v EUIPO — Norma (Manòu)
(Case T-504/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Manòu - Earlier national and international word marks MANOU - 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) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks)
(2022/C 24/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Soapland GmbH & Co. OHG (Andernach, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and A. Graul, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 (Case R 1504/2019-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. and Soapland GmbH & Co.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Soapland GmbH & Co. OHG.to pay the costs






(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
Case T-147/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Restructuring of Greek public debt — Private sector involvement — Collective action clauses — Private creditors — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Equal treatment — Natural and legal persons — Limitation periods — Whether European Union answerable for the measures at issue — Admissibility — Strict liability — Unusual and special damage)
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Euro Group (euro area), bank, bond, equal treatment, financial loss, investment company, legal person, natural person, private investment, private sector








C_2022024EN.01002401.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/24






Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Anastassopoulos and Others v Council and Commission
(Case T-147/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Restructuring of Greek public debt - Private sector involvement - Collective action clauses - Private creditors - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Equal treatment - Natural and legal persons - Limitation periods - Whether European Union answerable for the measures at issue - Admissibility - Strict liability - Unusual and special damage)
(2022/C 24/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Nikolaos Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia, Greece), Aristeidis Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Alexia Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Maria-Myrto Anastassopoulos (Nea Erythraia), Sophie Velliou (Kifisia, Greece) (represented by: K. Floros, M. Meng-Papantoni and H. Tagaras, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel, E. Chatziioakeimidou and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, L. Flynn and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking damages for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the implementation of a mandatory exchange of State bonds in the context of the restructuring of Greek public debt in 2012, on account of the participation of private investors involving the application of collective action clauses, based on conduct or acts of the Eurogroup, its President, the Heads of State or Government of the euro area and the Commission relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr. Nikolaos Anastassopoulos, Mr. Aristeidis Anastassopoulos, Ms Alexia Anastassopoulos, Ms Maria-Myrto Anastassopoulos and Ms Sophie Velliou to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10495 – WP / AP / T-MOBILE NETHERLANDS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 497/03
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, United States, consultancy, economic concentration, investment, investment company, merger control, provision of services, telecommunications, wholesale trade








C_2021497EN.01001401.xml










10.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 497/14






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10495 – WP / AP / T-MOBILE NETHERLANDS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 497/03)
On 17 November 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 policy’ 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 32021M10495. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-658/20: Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a cup — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, glass, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022024EN.01003401.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/34






Judgment of the General Court of 17 November 2021 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)
(Case T-658/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a cup - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2022/C 24/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Philip Jakober (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Hanf and M. Eberl, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2020 (Case R 554/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a cup as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Philip Jakober to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case C-690/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2021 — RSD Reise Service Deutschland GmbH v QL
Date: 2021-11-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: coronavirus disease, epidemic, package travel, payment, traveller








C_2022051EN.01002101.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 17 November 2021 — RSD Reise Service Deutschland GmbH v QL
(Case C-690/21)
(2022/C 51/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant: RSD Reise Service Deutschland GmbH

Applicant and respondent: QL

Question referred

Is Article 12(4) of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the traveller may be forced to accept a voucher and/or postponement in lieu of the repayment requested in the event of cancellation by the organiser due to a global pandemic?


(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2302 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC (OJ 2015 L 326, p. 1).