do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-315/21: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Nordesta (APIAL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark APIAL — Earlier EU word mark APIRETAL — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, food supplement, lighting equipment, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, toiletries, trade-mark law








C_2022198EN.01004601.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/46






Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Nordesta (APIAL)
(Case T-315/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark APIAL - Earlier EU word mark APIRETAL - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court)
(2022/C 198/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Miralles Llorca, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nordesta GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: J. Künzel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2021 (Case R 1560/2020-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Nordesta.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Statement of the Commission on Directive (EU) 2022/431 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work (OJ L 88, 16.3.2022, p. 1.) Action plan and legislative proposals 2022/C 121/01
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, cancer, carcinogenic substance, health risk, occupational disease, occupational health, operation of the Institutions, proposal (EU), safety standard








C_2022121EN.01000101.xml










16.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/1






Statement of the Commission on Directive (EU) 2022/431 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work (1)

Action plan and legislative proposals
(2022/C 121/01)
The obligations imposed on the Commission in Article 18a, third paragraph, regarding the presentation of an action plan and the presentation of a legislative proposal cannot go against the institutional prerogatives of the Commission and its right of initiative deriving directly from the Treaties.
Article 18a, third paragraph, refers to Article 16 of Directive 2004/37/EC, which lays down an obligation to set limit values on the basis of the available information, including scientific and technical data, in respect of all those substances for which this is possible. In implementing this provision, the Commission is also invited to present the action plan referred to in Article 18a, third paragraph. For reasons of transparency, this action plan will consist of a listing of the next 25 new or revised substances to be scientifically evaluated. The evaluations of the listed substances will form part of the established procedure including consultation of social partners, the opinion of the ACSH and impact assessment preparing any necessary legislative proposals in due time.


(1)  OJ L 88, 16.3.2022, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10529 – HEIDELBERGCEMENT / THOMA BRAVO / COMMAND ALKON) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 121/04
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, software








C_2022121EN.01000401.xml










16.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10529 – HEIDELBERGCEMENT / THOMA BRAVO / COMMAND ALKON)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 121/04)

1.   
On 7 March 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:






—


HeidelbergCement AG (‘HeidelbergCement’, Germany);










—


Thoma Bravo, LLC (‘Thoma Bravo’, U.S.);










—


Command Alkon, Inc. (‘Command Alkon’, U.S.).




HeidelbergCement will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Command Alkon.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned:






—


HeidelbergCement is a manufacturer of building materials offering in particular cement, clinker and other cement additives, aggregates, ready-mixed concrete and other concrete products, screed and asphalt,










—


Thoma Bravo is a private equity firm with a particular focus on application and infrastructure software and technology enabled services,










—


Command Alkon delivers automation software solutions in the U.S. and the EU used in the heavy-building materials industry for various purposes (pricing and qoting, order taking, scheduling and delivery, dispatching, batching, ticketing, truck tracking and truck management, quality control, recipes and production).






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.10529 – HEIDELBERGCEMENT / THOMA BRAVO / COMMAND ALKON
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’).
Joined Cases T-684/19 and T-704/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — MEKH and FGSZ v ACER (Energy — Regulation (EU) 2017/459 — Network code adopted by the Commission including an ‘incremental capacity process’ — ACER decision approving the implementation of an incremental capacity project — Plea of illegality — Lack of competence of the Commission — Article 6(11), Article 7(3) and Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009)
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Hungary, Western Transdanubia, energy transport, gas industry, gas pipeline, gas supply, market access, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022198EN.01003001.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/30






Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — MEKH and FGSZ v ACER
(Joined Cases T-684/19 and T-704/19) (1)

(Energy - Regulation (EU) 2017/459 - Network code adopted by the Commission including an ‘incremental capacity process’ - ACER decision approving the implementation of an incremental capacity project - Plea of illegality - Lack of competence of the Commission - Article 6(11), Article 7(3) and Article 8(6) of Regulation (EC) No 715/2009)
(2022/C 198/41)
Languages of the case: English and Hungarian

Parties


Applicant in Case T-684/19: Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (MEKH) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Stanka, J. Burai-Kovács, G. Szikla and Á. Kulcsár, lawyers)

Applicant in Case T-704/19: FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt. (Siófok, Hungary) (represented by: M. Horányi, N. Niejahr and S. Zakka, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented: in Case T-684/19, by P. Martinet, D. Lelovitis and N. Keyaerts, acting as Agents, and by E. Ameye, M. de Sousa Ferro and Cs. Nagy, lawyers, and, in Case T-704/19, by P. Martinet, D. Lelovitis and N. Keyaerts, acting as Agents, and by E. Ameye and M. de Sousa Ferro, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E–Control) (represented by: S. Polster, lawyer), European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision No 05/19 of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 9 April 2019 and of Decision No A-004-2019 of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 6 August 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares the action brought by Magyar Energetikai és Közmű-szabályozási Hivatal (MEKH) inadmissible in so far as it concerns Decision No 05/2019 of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) of 9 April 2019;










2.


Annuls Decision No A-004-2019 of the Board of Appeal of ACER of 6 August 2019;










3.


Orders ACER to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by MEKH and FGSZ Földgázszállító Zrt.;










4.


Orders the European Commission and Energie-Control Austria für die Regulierung der Elektrizitäts- und Erdgaswirtschaft (E-Control) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 406, 2.12.2019.
Case T-146/22: Action brought on 16 March 2022 — Ryanair v Commission
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, aid to undertakings, air transport, control of State aid, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, loan, right of establishment








C_2022198EN.01005602.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/56






Action brought on 16 March 2022 — Ryanair v Commission
(Case T-146/22)
(2022/C 198/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ryanair DAC (Swords, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, F.-C. Laprévote, V. Blanc, D. Pérez de Lamo and S. Rating, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision (EU) of 16 July 2021 on State aid SA.57116–COVID-19: State loan guarantee and State loan for KLM; and,










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to adequately define the beneficiary by (i) considering that KLM was the sole beneficiary of the aid provided by the Netherlands and (ii) failing to ensure that the aid previously granted to Air France-KLM group could not benefit or ‘spill-over’ to KLM.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision violates specific provisions of the TFEU and the general principles of EU Law that have underpinned the liberalisation of EU air transport since the late 1980s (i.e., non-discrimination, free provision of services and freedom of establishment).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the European Commission misused its powers and misapplied Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and its Temporary Framework, by (i) not addressing a serious disturbance in the Dutch economy and (ii) failing to weigh the beneficial effects of the aid against its adverse effects on trading conditions and the maintenance of undistorted competition (i.e., the ‘balancing test’).










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to initiate a formal investigation despite the existence of ‘serious difficulties’ and violated the applicant’s procedural rights.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU.
Case T-468/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Kühne v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Policy of Parliament staff mobility — Reassignment in the interest of the service)
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, labour mobility, reassignment








C_2022198EN.01003501.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/35






Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Kühne v Parliament
(Case T-468/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Policy of Parliament staff mobility - Reassignment in the interest of the service)
(2022/C 198/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Verena Kühne (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Schmechel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Darie and B. Schäfer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 2 July 2020 reassigning the applicant to the Liaison Office in Luxembourg (Luxembourg).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mrs Verena Kühne to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10593 – DUSSUR / SeAH / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 139/01
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, iron and steel product, merger control, tube








C_2022139EN.01000101.xml










29.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10593 – DUSSUR / SeAH / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 139/01)
On 16 March 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 32022M10593. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-314/21: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — TA v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Reports procedure — Staff report 2019 — Fixing of objectives — Internal rules on staff reports — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022198EN.01004502.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/45






Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — TA v Parliament
(Case T-314/21) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Reports procedure - Staff report 2019 - Fixing of objectives - Internal rules on staff reports - Manifest error of assessment)
(2022/C 198/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: TA (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. González Argüelles and R. Schiano, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of her staff report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2019, as amended by the decision of 29 March 2021 dismissing the claim in part.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders TA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Case T-249/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Sabra v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Errors of assessment — Criterion of a leading businessperson operating in Syria — Presumption of a link with the Syrian regime — Rebuttal of the presumption)
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, entrepreneur, international sanctions, natural person








C_2022198EN.01003301.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/33






Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Sabra v Council
(Case T-249/20) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Errors of assessment - Criterion of a leading businessperson operating in Syria - Presumption of a link with the Syrian regime - Rebuttal of the presumption)
(2022/C 198/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Abdelkader Sabra (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: M. Lester QC, and A. Bradshaw, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Haas and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 43 I, p. 6), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 43 I, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 66), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2020 L 168, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/212 of 17 February 2020 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/211 of 17 February 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 of 28 May 2020 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 of 28 May 2020 implementing Regulation No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, in so far as those measures concern Mr Abdelkader Sabra;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Case T-113/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — BSEF v Commission (Energy — Directive 2009/125/EC — Ecodesign requirements for electronic displays — Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 — Ban on halogenated flame retardants in the enclosure and stand of electronic displays — Competence of the author of the act — Manifest error of assessment — Legal certainty — Proportionality — Equal treatment)
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: ecodesign, electronic device, energy efficiency, environmental impact, equal treatment, halogen, marketing standard, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, screen








C_2022198EN.01003201.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/32






Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — BSEF v Commission
(Case T-113/20) (1)

(Energy - Directive 2009/125/EC - Ecodesign requirements for electronic displays - Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 - Ban on halogenated flame retardants in the enclosure and stand of electronic displays - Competence of the author of the act - Manifest error of assessment - Legal certainty - Proportionality - Equal treatment)
(2022/C 198/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bromine Science Environnemental Forum (BSEF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. De Meester and L. Haasbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/2021 of 1 October 2019 laying down ecodesign requirements for electronic displays pursuant to Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 1275/2008 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 642/2009 (OJ 2019 L 315, p. 241), in so far as it bans the use of halogenated flame retardants in the enclosure and stand of electronic displays.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bromine Science Environnemental Forum (BSEF) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Case T-281/21: Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Ye (APE TEES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark APE TEES — Earlier national non-registered figurative trade marks representing an ape — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom)
Date: 2022-03-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, marketing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022198EN.01004501.xml










16.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 198/45






Judgment of the General Court of 16 March 2022 — Nowhere v EUIPO — Ye (APE TEES)
(Case T-281/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark APE TEES - Earlier national non-registered figurative trade marks representing an ape - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Rules governing common-law actions for passing-off - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom)
(2022/C 198/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nowhere Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Junguo Ye (Elche, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2474/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Nowhere Co. and Mr Ye.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2474/2017-2);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.