do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10449 – KIA / ALMAVIVA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 486/03
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Kuwait, economic concentration, health care, medical diagnosis, medical institution, merger control, sovereign wealth fund








C_2021486EN.01002101.xml










3.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 486/21






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10449 – KIA / ALMAVIVA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 486/03)
On 19 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 32021M10449. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-738/21: Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Bora Creations v EUIPO (essence)
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beverage, confectionery, cosmetic product, decontamination, food supplement, milk product, protective equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022037EN.01004702.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/47






Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Bora Creations v EUIPO (essence)
(Case T-738/21)
(2022/C 37/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Bora Creations, SL (Andratx, Spain) (represented by: R. Lange and M. Ebner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark essence — Application for registration No 18 269 704

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2021 in Case R 693/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and register the EU trade mark applied for;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10251 – INVIVO GROUP / ETABLISSEMENTS J SOUFFLET) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 243/05
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: France, agricultural cooperative, agricultural market, agro-industry, cooperative, crop production, dairy industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2022243EN.01005201.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/52






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10251 – INVIVO GROUP / ETABLISSEMENTS J SOUFFLET)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 243/05)
On 19 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 French 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 32021M10251. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/2033 of 19 November 2021 amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/97 in support of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in the framework of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU strategy, biological weapon, chemical weapon, coronavirus disease, epidemic, international convention, non-proliferation of arms




L_2021415EN.01002901.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 415/29








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2021/2033
of 19 November 2021
         
amending Decision (CFSP) 2019/97 in support of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in the framework of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28(1) and 31(1) thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 21 January 2019, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/97 (1), which provides for a 36-month implementation period from the date of the conclusion of the financing agreement referred to in Article 3(3) of that Decision, for the projects referred to in Article 1 thereof.












(2)


The implementation period of the financing agreement ends on 4 February 2022.












(3)


On 8 July 2021, the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), which is responsible for the technical implementation of the projects referred to in Article 1 of Decision (CFSP) 2019/97, requested a 12-month no-cost extension of the implementation period of that Decision. This extension allows UNODA to carry out the implementation of several of the projects referred to in Article 1 of Decision (CFSP) 2019/97 the implementation of which was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.












(4)


The extension of the implementation period of the projects referred to in Article 1 of Decision (CFSP) 2019/97 until 4 February 2023 does not have any implication as regards financial resources.












(5)


Decision (CFSP) 2019/97 should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Article 5(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2019/97 is replaced by the following:


‘2.   This Decision shall expire on 4 February 2023.’




Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 19 November 2021.


For the Council


The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES
            





(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/97 of 21 January 2019 in support of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention in the framework of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (OJ L 19, 22.1.2019, p. 11).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 18 November 2021 2021/C 467/04
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021467EN.01000501.xml










19.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 467/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

18 November 2021
(2021/C 467/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1345 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,58 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4362 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84173 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0555 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0511 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9523 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,230 




HUF


Hungarian forint


363,69 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6565 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9497 




TRY


Turkish lira


12,5522 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5580 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4295 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8366 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6106 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5408 




KRW


South Korean won


1 342,26 




ZAR


South African rand


17,7211 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,2419 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5120 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 138,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7439 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,099 




RUB


Russian rouble


82,8200 




THB


Thai baht


37,030 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,2839 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,5605 




INR


Indian rupee


84,2180 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-740/21: Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, alternative dispute resolution, biofuel, cartel, ethanol, rights of the defence








C_2022024EN.01004802.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/48






Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Alcogroup and Alcodis v Commission
(Case T-740/21)
(2022/C 24/63)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Alcogroup (Brussels, Belgium) and Alcodis (Brussels) (represented by: P. de Bandt, C. Binet and M. Nuytten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


order the Commission to produce the contested decisions, by way of measures of organisation of procedure;










—


annul the contested decisions;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against, first, the decision of the Commission requesting Abengoa SA and Abengoa Bioenergia SA to restart, under certain conditions, the settlement procedure in case AT.40054 — Ethanol Benchmarks and, second, the decision to reopen that procedure, the applicants rely on a single plea alleging infringement of the rules applicable to settlements.
The applicants submit that in adopting the contested decisions, the Commission infringes the rules applicable to settlements. The applicable rules do not provide for the Commission reopening a settlement procedure at that stage of the proceedings, let alone by precluding any discussion concerning the case overview disclosed in an initial settlement procedure in 2016 and 2017. Furthermore, the applicants submit that the contested decisions lead to a clear infringement of their rights of defence.
Case T-742/21: Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Preventicus v EUIPO (NIGHTWATCH)
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, medical diagnosis, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2022037EN.01004901.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/49






Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Preventicus v EUIPO (NIGHTWATCH)
(Case T-742/21)
(2022/C 37/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Preventicus GmbH (Jena, Germany) (represented by: J. Zecher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark NIGTHWATCH — Application for registration No 17 996 007 — Refusal — Request for conversion of an EU trade mark application into a national trade mark application for the United Kingdom

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2021 in Case R 1241/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


orders the EUIPO to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the General Court and the costs incurred during the appeal and examination procedures before the EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 139 (1) in conjunction with Article 37 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the right to a fair and timely handling of the matter pursuant to Article 41(1) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union










—


Infringement of the right to be heard pursuant to Article 41(2) of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union.
Case T-739/21: Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Eurecna v Commission
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, administrative procedure, audit, legal basis, loan, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022073EN.01004901.xml










14.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 73/49






Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Eurecna v Commission
(Case T-739/21)
(2022/C 73/62)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decisions requiring loans to be repaid as contained in the Commission’s letters of 10 September 2021, 16 September 2021 and 30 September 2021 by which the Commission took steps to recover almost the entire sum paid out in the context of a project financed by the European Union and held to be repayable following alleged irregularities in financial reporting; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs in the case.





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 that the decision of 10 September 2021 has no legal basis.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the rights of the defence in the context of the decision of 10 September 2021.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the contested loan does not exist.






—


In that respect, the applicant relies on a breach of the principle of sound administration and diligence in administrative action in the context of the audit carried out by Ernst & Young (EY), a breach of the rights of the defence in the context of the audit carried out by EY, breach of the principle of sound administration due to a failure to comply with the duty of impartiality in administrative action, and a misinterpretation of the contract in the context of the relationship with EY.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10350 – MONDELEZ / CHIPITA INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL COMPANY) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 467/08
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: beverage, catering industry, cheese, confectionery, confectionery product, economic concentration, food production, merger control, packaged product








C_2021467EN.01001201.xml










19.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 467/12






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10350 – MONDELEZ / CHIPITA INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL COMPANY)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 467/08)

1.   
On 18 October 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:






—


Mondelēz International, Inc. (‘Mondelēz’, US),










—


Chipita Industrial and Commercial Company S.A. (‘Chipita’, Greece).




Mondelēz acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Chipita.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Mondelēz: a global snack company with a product offering spanning biscuits, chocolate, chewing gum and candy, cheese and powdered beverages. Mondelēz manufactures and markets its products internationally,










—


for Chipita: a multinational manufacturer of branded packaged croissants and other, mostly baked bread based, snack products.






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.



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.10350 – MONDELEZ / CHIPITA INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL COMPANY
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’).
Case C-701/21 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2021 by Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered on 22 September 2021 by the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-639/14 RENV, Τ-352/15 and Τ-740/17, Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE v European Commission supported by Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid to undertakings, arbitration, control of State aid, court of arbitration, electrical energy, electricity supply, price of energy








C_2022037EN.01002101.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/21






Appeal brought on 19 November 2021 by Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon against the judgment delivered on 22 September 2021 by the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-639/14 RENV, Τ-352/15 and Τ-740/17, Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE v European Commission supported by Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon
(Case C-701/21 P)
(2022/C 37/28)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Mytilinaios AE — Omilos Epicheiriseon (represented by: Vassilios-Spyridon Christianos and Georgios Karydis, δικηγόροι)

Other parties to the proceedings: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court in Joined Cases T-639/14 RENV, T-352/15 and T-740/17;










—


if necessary, refer the matter back to the General Court;










—


order DEI AE to pay the costs in their entirety.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The purpose of the judgment under appeal was to determine whether the Commission should have had doubts or serious difficulties, pursuant to Article 4(3) and (4) of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) as to the existence of State aid concerning the electricity supply tariff charged by DEI to the appellant following an arbitration decision, on the basis of which a formal investigation procedure should have been initiated.
The appellant puts forward three grounds of appeal and submits that, in the judgment under appeal:






—



First, the General Court failed to examine the general principles of law nemo auditur (…) and venire contra factum proprium in so far as concerns DEI AE’s interest in bringing an action for annulment.










—



Second, the General Court erred in law, first, as regards the private-operator test referred to in Article 107(1) TFEU and, second, as regards the status of the arbitration tribunal as a State body.










—



Third, the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 4 of Regulation 2015/1589 as regards first, the condition of doubts or serious difficulties as to the existence of State aid at the stage of the preliminary examination of complaints, and, second, the reversal of the burden of proof.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Case T-737/21: Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Refractory Intellectual Property v EUIPO (e-tech)
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, heat-resisting materials, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022037EN.01004701.xml










24.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/47






Action brought on 19 November 2021 — Refractory Intellectual Property v EUIPO (e-tech)
(Case T-737/21)
(2022/C 37/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Refractory Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark e-tech — Application for registration No 18 274 481

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 September 2021 in Case R 548/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-695/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2021 — Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV v Belgische Staat
Date: 2021-11-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, advertising, game of chance, gaming establishment, trade licence








C_2022084EN.01002802.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 19 November 2021 — Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV v Belgische Staat
(Case C-695/21)
(2022/C 84/37)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Recreatieprojecten Zeeland BV, Casino Admiral Zeeland BV, Supergame BV

Respondent: Belgische Staat

Question referred

Must Article 56(1) TFEU be interpreted as precluding the national legislation of a Member State from allowing the operators of a limited and controlled number of licensed games of chance establishments in its territory to benefit from an exception to a generally applicable advertising ban in respect of such establishments, unless it also provides for the possibility of the operators of games of chance establishments located in other Member States also being allowed to benefit from the same exception to the advertising ban in its territory in respect of their establishments?