do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-791/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Sped-Pro v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Rail freight transport services market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Reasonable time — EU interest in pursuing examination of a complaint — Determination of the authority best placed to examine a complaint — Criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning respect for the rule of law — Risk of infringement of a complainant’s rights if a complaint is rejected — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Poland, carriage of goods, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, rail transport, rule of law








C_2022148EN.01002301.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/23






Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Sped-Pro v Commission
(Case T-791/19) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Rail freight transport services market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Reasonable time - EU interest in pursuing examination of a complaint - Determination of the authority best placed to examine a complaint - Criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning respect for the rule of law - Risk of infringement of a complainant’s rights if a complaint is rejected - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 148/30)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Sped-Pro S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Kozak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Szczodrowski, L. Wildpanner and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 6099 final of 12 August 2019 (Case AT.40459 — Rail freight forwarding in Poland — PKP Cargo), rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant concerning alleged infringements of Article 102 TFEU on the rail freight transport services market in Poland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2019) 6099 final of 12 August 2019 (Case AT.40459 — Rail freight forwarding in Poland — PKP Cargo);










2.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sped-Pro S.A;










3.


Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Case T-77/22: Action brought on 9 February 2022 — Asesores Comunitarios v Commission
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, access to EU information, economic policy, economic recovery








C_2022138EN.01003101.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/31






Action brought on 9 February 2022 — Asesores Comunitarios v Commission
(Case T-77/22)
(2022/C 138/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Asesores Comunitarios SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Monrabà Bagan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Decision No C(2021) 8946 final of 3 December 2021 refusing the disclosure of the recovery and resilience plan of Spain; 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 misapplied Article 4(1)(a), forth indent, of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) by undermining the public interest as regard the financial and economic policy. It is furthermore alleged that the contested decision has not accurately stated the facts related to a hypothetical threat to the economic stability of the Kingdom of Spain because of the disclosure of its Recovery and Resilience Plan to the applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by considering that public disclosure of the requested documents would infringe the privacy and the integrity of individuals mentioned in these documents.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by considering that public disclosure of the requested documents would seriously undermine the ongoing decision-making process.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant misapplied Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by considering that no overriding public interest in disclosing the requested documents has been established prevailing over the need to protect the ongoing decision-making process.






(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. 43-48).
Case T-195/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — GEA Group v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers — Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC — Decision amending the initial decision annulled — Decision rejecting a request for repayment of the fine — Action for annulment — Actionable measure — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Article 266(1) TFEU)
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, heating, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2022148EN.01002101.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/21






Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — GEA Group v Commission
(Case T-195/19) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets in tin stabilisers and in ESBO/esters heat stabilisers - Decision establishing an infringement of Article 81 EC - Decision amending the initial decision annulled - Decision rejecting a request for repayment of the fine - Action for annulment - Actionable measure - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Article 266(1) TFEU)
(2022/C 148/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. du Mont, R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, V. Bottka and T. Baumé, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2019) 283284 final of 24 January 2019 dismissing the request of the applicant seeking repayment of the fine paid under Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.589 — Heat stabilisers).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders GEA Group AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case T-33/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Van Walle v ECDC (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — ECDC staff members — Appraisal report for 2018 — Freedom of expression — Obligation to state reasons — Case requiring a specific statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Right to be heard)
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: freedom of expression, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff assessment, temporary employment








C_2022128EN.01001902.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/19






Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Van Walle v ECDC
(Case T-33/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - ECDC staff members - Appraisal report for 2018 - Freedom of expression - Obligation to state reasons - Case requiring a specific statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Right to be heard)
(2022/C 128/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ivo Van Walle (Järfälla, Sweden) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (represented by: J. Mannheim, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Ivo Van Walle to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).






(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Case T-652/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission (Public procurement — Financial regulation — Exclusion from procurement and grant-award procedures covered by the EDF for a three-year period — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Right to be heard — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Development Fund, award of contract, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality, public procurement, right to justice, rights of the defence, sanction (EU)








C_2022128EN.01001802.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/18






Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Elevolution — Engenharia v Commission
(Case T-652/19) (1)

(Public procurement - Financial regulation - Exclusion from procurement and grant-award procedures covered by the EDF for a three-year period - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Right to be heard - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)
(2022/C 128/25)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Elevolution — Engenharia, SA (Amadora, Portugal) (represented by: M. Marques Mendes, R. Campos, A. Dias Henriques, M. Troncoso Ferrer and C. García Fernández, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I Melo Sampaio, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 12 July 2019 excluding the applicant for three years from participating in procurement and grant-award procedures financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) and concerning the publication of information relating to that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Elevolution — Engenharia, SA to pay the costs, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10608 – CMA CGM / CLS BUSINESS) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 68/04
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Europe, North America, carriage for hire or reward, economic concentration, harbour installation, logistics, maritime transport, merger control, provision of services, subsidiary








C_2022068EN.01000601.xml










9.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10608 – CMA CGM / CLS BUSINESS)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 68/04)

1.   
On 1 February 2022, 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:






—


CMA CGM S.A. (‘CMA CGM’, France),










—


CLS Business, controlled by Ingram Micro Inc. (‘Ingram’, United States).




CMA CGM S.A. will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of CLS Business.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


CMA CGM offers a range of services related to sea transportation, including container liner shipping and port terminal services. CMA CGM is also active within freight forwarding and contract logistics services through its subsidiary CEVA Logistics,










—


CLS Business comprises the contract logistics business of Ingram, currently operated by Ingram’s division Commerce & Lifecycle Services. CLS Business offers a range of services within contract logistics mainly in North America and Europe, notably forward logistics and reverse logistics.






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 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:
Case M.10608 – CMA CGM / CLS BUSINESS
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-672/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Companhia de Seguros Índico v Commission (Public contracts — Financial Regulation — Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general EU budget and by the EDF for a three-year period — Principle of good faith — Abuse of rights — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality)
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, award of contract, general budget (EU), principle of proportionality, public procurement, tendering








C_2022148EN.01002201.xml










4.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/22






Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Companhia de Seguros Índico v Commission
(Case T-672/19) (1)

(Public contracts - Financial Regulation - Exclusion from procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general EU budget and by the EDF for a three-year period - Principle of good faith - Abuse of rights - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality)
(2022/C 148/29)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Companhia de Seguros Índico SA (Maputo, Mozambique) (represented by: R. Oliveira, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: I. Melo Sampaio, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 July 2019 excluding the applicant for three years from participating in procurement and grant award procedures covered by the general budget of the European Union and the European Development Fund (EDF) and from being selected for implementing Union funds, and publishing information relating to that exclusion.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Companhia de Seguros Índico SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case C-35/21: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Konservinvest’ OOD v ‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Designations of Origin and Geographical indications — Article 9 — Transitional national protection — Geographical indication designating an agricultural product, registered under the legislation of a Member State and protected at national level)
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural product, consumer information, designation of origin, foodstuff, labelling, product designation, quality control of agricultural products








C_2022222EN.01000501.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/5






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 9 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Konservinvest’ OOD v ‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD
(Case C-35/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Designations of Origin and Geographical indications - Article 9 - Transitional national protection - Geographical indication designating an agricultural product, registered under the legislation of a Member State and protected at national level)
(2022/C 222/06)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Konservinvest’ OOD

Defendant:‘Bulkons Parvomay’ OOD

Operative part of the order

Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State providing for a national system for the registration and protection of qualified geographical designations relating to agricultural products and foodstuffs falling within the scope of that regulation, which is intended to apply only to disputes relating to infringements of the rights arising from those designations between traders from that Member State which produce, in that Member State, the products for which those designations have been registered under that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 98, 22.3.2021.
Case T-317/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance ethoprophos — Non-renewal of approval — Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 — Rights of the defence — Manifest error of assessment — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Precautionary principle)
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, plant health product, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2022128EN.01001701.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/17






Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — AMVAC Netherlands v Commission
(Case T-317/19) (1)

(Plant protection products - Active substance ethoprophos - Non-renewal of approval - Regulation No 1107/2009 and Implementing Regulation No 844/2012 - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Precautionary principle)
(2022/C 128/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AMVAC Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu, M. Grunchard and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/344 of 28 February 2019 concerning the non-renewal of approval of the active substance ethoprophos, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (OJ 2019 L 62, p. 7).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders AMVAC Netherlands BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the present action and in the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10564 – APOLLO / MISSGUIDED) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 199/02
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: United Kingdom, clothing industry, cosmetic product, economic concentration, electronic commerce, footwear industry, investment company, merger control, retail trade, subsidiary, wholesale trade








C_2022199EN.01000201.xml










17.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10564 – APOLLO / MISSGUIDED)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 199/02)
On 9 February 2022, 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 32022M10564. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-589/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY — Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Admissibility of new evidence — Alteration of the distinctive character)
Date: 2022-02-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022128EN.01002102.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/21






Judgment of the General Court of 9 February 2022 — Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes v EUIPO — Inticom (MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY)
(Case T-589/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark MAIMAI MADE IN ITALY - Earlier EU word mark YAMAMAY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Admissibility of new evidence - Alteration of the distinctive character)
(2022/C 128/30)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl (Surano, Italy) (represented by: R. Fragalà, 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: Inticom SpA (Gallarate, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 July 2020 (Case R 1874/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Inticom and Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Calzaturificio Emmegiemme Shoes Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.