do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-148/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Président du tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 2 March 2022 — OP v Commune d’Ans
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, freedom of expression, religious symbol, sexual discrimination, staff regulations, working environment








C_2022207EN.01001901.xml










23.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 207/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Président du tribunal du travail de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 2 March 2022 — OP v Commune d’Ans
(Case C-148/22)
(2022/C 207/27)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Président du tribunal du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OP

Defendant: Commune d’Ans

Questions referred







1.


Can Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) be interpreted as permitting a public administration to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment and thus to prohibit all members of staff from wearing symbols of conviction, whether or not they are in direct contact with the public?










2.


Can Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted as permitting a public administration to put in place an entirely neutral administrative environment and thus to prohibit all members of staff from wearing symbols of conviction, whether or not they are in direct contact with the public, even if that neutral prohibition appears mostly to affect women, and may thus constitute disguised discrimination on grounds of gender?






(1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.
Case T-333/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Giuliani (IALO TSP) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark IALO TSP — Earlier international word mark HYALO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Identification of a member of the Board of Appeal — Article 165(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, cosmetic product, dietary product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2022198EN.01003302.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/33






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Fidia farmaceutici v EUIPO — Giuliani (IALO TSP)
(Case T-333/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark IALO TSP - Earlier international word mark HYALO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Identification of a member of the Board of Appeal - Article 165(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2022/C 198/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fidia farmaceutici SpA (Abano Terme, Italy) (represented by: R. Kunz-Hallstein and H.P. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Giuliani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: S. de Bosio, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2020 (Case R 2107/2019-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Fidia farmaceutici and Giuliani.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fidia farmaceutici SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Giuliani SpA to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Scientific opinion on cancer screening in the European Union.
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Group of Chief Scientific Advisors
Subjects: European Union, artificial intelligence, cancer, disease prevention, medical research, public health, scientific report

Scientific Opinion on

Cancer screening 
in the European Union

ISSUE 

Cancer is the primary cause of death 
for Europeans under 65. The impact of 
cancer on families and society as a whole 
is devastating in multiple ways, affecting 
quality of life by reducing individual 
well-being and emotional stability, but also 
carrying important financial aspects.

CHALLENGE

Population-based screening programmes 
have not been fully implemented by Member 
States, and inequalities persist in access to 
screening and care.

Research on new and innovative screening 
techniques is constantly ongoing, but 
guidelines and policies must be kept 
up-to-date with these findings. 

Without conclusive action, by 2035 cancer 
cases are estimated to increase by almost 
25%, potentially making it the leading cause 
of death in the EU.

© European Union, 2022 
Image: © rob z # 187188002, icons: © Анжела Алікіна # 339991210, 2022. Source: stock.
adobe.com 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022 
KI-07-22-110-EN-N  |  ISBN 978-92-76-48751-7  |  doi:10.2777/14480  

March 2022

GOAL:
Saving lives by improving, 
extending, and optimizing 
cancer screening programmes

Recommendations

Improve people’s participation in breast, cervical 
and colorectal cancer screening programmes, 
considering individual risk factors.

Extend population-based screening programs 
to lung and prostate cancer, and ensure 
preparedness for the introduction of new 
methods.

Support the harmonisation of protocols 
and quality assurance, and the establishment 
of biobanks.

Impact

Revision of the 2003 Council Recommendations on 
cancer screening programmes for breast, colorectal and 
cervical cancer, along with other principles of best practice 
in their early detection. 

This is a summary of a scientific opinion by
the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors,

Independent expert group providing high-quality and timely 
scientific advice to the European Commission, to inform 
European Union policies and legislation, and informed by 
SAPEA evidence review reports.

Read the full report here.

https://europa.eu/!Rf67QV

Research andInnovation
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10506 - PARKER / MEGGITT) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 102/06
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aeronautical industry, aerospace industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2022102EN.01000801.xml










2.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10506 - PARKER / MEGGITT)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 102/06)

1.   
On 21 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:






—


Parker-Hannifin Corporation (‘Parker’, United States),










—


Meggitt PLC (‘Meggitt’, United Kingdom).




Parker will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Meggitt.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


Parker designs, manufactures and supplies motion and control technologies and systems, and provides precision engineered solutions for a variety of mobile, industrial and aerospace markets at global level,










—


Meggitt designs, manufactures and supplies components and sub-systems for aerospace and defence markets, and selected energy applications, at global level.






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.10506 – PARKER / MEGGITT
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 T-715/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Degode- v EUIPO — Leo Pharma (Skinovea) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Skinovea — Earlier national word mark SKINOREN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, consultancy, cosmetic product, health service, pharmaceutical product, publication, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022171EN.01002802.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/28






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Degode- v EUIPO — Leo Pharma (Skinovea)
(Case T-715/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Skinovea - Earlier national word mark SKINOREN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 171/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Degode-Dermago Development GmbH (Strausberg, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Leo Pharma A/S (Ballerup, Denmark)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 September 2020 (Case R 337/2020 5) relating to opposition proceedings between Leo Pharma and Degode-Dermago Development.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Degode-Dermago Development GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Case T-134/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Huhtamaki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a State aid investigation — Advance tax agreements — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — General presumption of confidentiality — Not irrebuttable — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Luxembourg, State aid, access to EU information, confidentiality, control of State aid, corporation tax, provision of documents, tax law








C_2022171EN.01002602.xml










25.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/26






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Huhtamaki v Commission
(Case T-134/20) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a State aid investigation - Advance tax agreements - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of confidentiality - Not irrebuttable - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 171/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Huhtamaki Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Struys and F. Pili, lawyers)

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

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 9417 final of 18 December 2019 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents relating to a State aid investigation made by the applicant pursuant to 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 Commission Decision C(2019) 9417 final of 18 December 2019 rejecting the confirmatory application for access to documents relating to a State aid investigation made by Huhtamaki Sàrl pursuant to 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;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (Official Journal of the European Union L 59 of 28 February 2022)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, territorial dispute, territorial law








L_2022067EN.01011201.xml










2.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 67/112







Corrigendum to Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/337 of 28 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 59 of 28 February 2022
)


On page 6, entry 675, under the heading ‘Identifying information’:
for:


                  ‘DOB: 21.4.1964
               
POB: Lviv, Russian Federation
Gender: Male’,

read:


                  ‘DOB: 21.4.1964
               
POB: Lviv, Ukrainian SSR, (now Ukraine)
Gender: Male’.
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (Official Journal of the European Union L 58 of 28 February 2022)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, territorial dispute, territorial law








L_2022067EN.01011301.xml










2.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 67/113







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/336 of 28 February 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 58 of 28 February 2022
)


On page 7, entry 675, under the heading ‘Identifying information’:
for:


                  ‘DOB: 21.4.1964
               
POB: Lviv, Russian Federation
Gender: Male’,

read:


                  ‘DOB: 21.4.1964
               
POB: Lviv, Ukrainian SSR, (now Ukraine)
Gender: Male’.
Case C-154/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-682/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2022303EN.01001003.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/10






Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-682/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-154/22 P)
(2022/C 303/14)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rieker Schuh AG
By order of 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case C-152/22 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-684/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2022294EN.01001402.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/14






Appeal brought on 2 March 2022 by Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2021 in Case T-684/20, Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office
(Case C-152/22 P)
(2022/C 294/20)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Legero Schuhfabrik GmbH (represented by: M. Gail, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Rieker Schuh AG
By order of 22 June 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10524 – MERCEDES-BENZ / TOTALENERGIES / STELLANTIS / ACC) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 102/05
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity storage device, merger control, motor vehicle industry








C_2022102EN.01000601.xml










2.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10524 – MERCEDES-BENZ / TOTALENERGIES / STELLANTIS / ACC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 102/05)

1.   
On 23 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:






—


Mercedes-Benz AG (‘MBAG’, Germany), belonging to the Daimler Group (Germany),










—


Stellantis N.V. (‘Stellantis’, The Netherlands), belonging to the Stellantis Group (The Netherlands),










—


Saft EV SAS (‘Saft’, France), a subdisiary of TotalEnergies SE (‘TotalEnergies’, France),










—


Automotive Cells Company SE (‘ACC’, France).
MBAG, Stellantis and TotalEnergies will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of ACC.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.






2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


MBAG is an automotive original equipment manufacturer (‘OEM’) and dealer of motor vehicles, passenger cars (‘PCs’) as well as light commercial vehicles (‘LCVs’) and heavy-duty vehicles, under the brands BharatBenz, Freightliner, FUSO, Mercedes-Benz, Setra, Thomas Built Buses and Western Star,










—


Stellantis is an automotive OEM and dealer of motor vehicles, PCs as well as LCVs, under the brands Abarth, Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Citroën, Dodge, DS, Fiat, Fiat Professional, Jeep, Lancia, Opel, Peugeot, Ram and Vauxhall,










—


Saft designs, develops, and manufactures advanced industrial batteries for a wide range of civil and military applications,










—


ACC develops, manufactures and supplies of lithium-ion cells and modules mainly for the automotive industry.






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.10524 – MERCEDES-BENZ / TOTALENERGIES / STELLANTIS / ACC
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 T-579/20: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Genekam Biotechnology v Commission (Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Fibrogelnet project — Recovery of an amount receivable — Risk avoidance mechanism — Amount receivable effectively recovered from the Guarantee Fund — Decision establishing a pecuniary obligation and forming an enforceable decision — Article 299 TFEU — Competence of the author of the act — Termination of the applicant’s participation in the project — Eligible costs — Reports and deliverables)
Date: 2022-03-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, claim, eligibility criteria, financial aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2022198EN.01003701.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/37






Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2022 — Genekam Biotechnology v Commission
(Case T-579/20) (1)

(Grant agreement concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Fibrogelnet project - Recovery of an amount receivable - Risk avoidance mechanism - Amount receivable effectively recovered from the Guarantee Fund - Decision establishing a pecuniary obligation and forming an enforceable decision - Article 299 TFEU - Competence of the author of the act - Termination of the applicant’s participation in the project - Eligible costs - Reports and deliverables)
(2022/C 198/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Genekam Biotechnology AG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Hertwig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. André, J. Estrada de Solà and R. Pethke, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 5548 final of 7 August 2020 establishing a pecuniary obligation and forming an enforceable decision against the applicant for the amount of EUR 119 659,55, together with default interest, arising from the grant that it received in respect of the Fibrogelnet project.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Genekam Biotechnology AG to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 414, 30.11.2020.