do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-308/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2022 — Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, in the presence of: Dow AgroScience BV (Dow)
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discretionary power, market approval, plant health product, right to justice








C_2022359EN.01002001.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2022 — Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, in the presence of: Dow AgroScience BV (Dow)
(Case C-308/22)
(2022/C 359/21)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)

Defendant: College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

In the presence of: Dow AgroScience BV (Dow)

Questions referred







1.


Does the Member State concerned, which decides on the authorisation of a plant protection product under Article 36(2) of Regulation 1107/2009, (1) have any discretion to depart from the assessment of the zonal rapporteur Member State that examined the application under Article 36(1) of Regulation 1107/2009 and, if so, what is the margin of that discretion?










2.


If the answer to the first question is that the Member State concerned has no or limited discretion, how is the right to an effective remedy under Article 47 of the Charter given effect? Is it then possible for the correctness of the zonal rapporteur Member State’s assessment to be fully challenged before the national court of the Member State concerned?










3.


If the Member State concerned, or the court of that Member State, concludes that the zonal rapporteur Member State’s assessment is based on insufficient grounds, to what extent is the Member State concerned required to involve the zonal rapporteur Member State in preparing an adequately reasoned assessment?










4.


Can the zonal rapporteur Member State confine itself to an assessment based exclusively on adopted guidance documents, even if the scientific and technical knowledge contained therein is no longer fully up to date?










5.


If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, can the Member State carrying out the zonal assessment additionally rely on scientific and technical knowledge contained in guidance documents which have already been drawn up but not yet adopted, or must the Member State carrying out the zonal assessment take account of all scientific and technical knowledge available even outside of the guidance documents?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10674 – INTERPARKING SERVIZI / OSR / PARKING LOT JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 222/07
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Lombardy, economic concentration, indemnity insurance, life assurance, medical institution, merger control, parking area








C_2023222EN.01003301.xml










26.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/33






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10674 – INTERPARKING SERVIZI / OSR / PARKING LOT JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 222/07)
On 11 May 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 32022M10674. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10710 – SELFINVEST / LLG / SELECTED CAR GROUP JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 203/01
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carrier, economic concentration, furniture industry, holding company, maritime shipping, merger control, provision of services, retail trade, risk management, tanker








C_2022203EN.01000101.xml










20.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10710 – SELFINVEST / LLG / SELECTED CAR GROUP JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 203/01)
On 11 May 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 32022M10710. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10661 – BAIN CAPITAL / INETUM) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 199/01
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: digital technology, economic concentration, information technology industry, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2022199EN.01000101.xml










17.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 199/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10661 – BAIN CAPITAL / INETUM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 199/01)
On 11 May 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 32022M10661. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-309/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2022 — Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, in the presence of: Adama Registrations B.V. (Adama)
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: endocrine disruptor, market approval, plant health product, scientific research








C_2022359EN.01002101.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 11 May 2022 — Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, in the presence of: Adama Registrations B.V. (Adama)
(Case C-309/22)
(2022/C 359/22)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)

Defendant: College voor de toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

In the presence of: Adama Registrations B.V. (Adama)

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 2 of Regulation 2018/605 (1) imply that the competent authority must also apply the new criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties in the assessment and decision-making process relating to applications for authorisation which were still pending on 10 November 2018, also in view of Article 29(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 4(3) of Regulation 1107/2009? (2)











2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is it incumbent on the competent authority to stay the assessment and decision-making process relating to applications for authorisation pending the findings of the European Commission on the effects of Regulation 2018/605 on any proceedings pending under Regulation 1107/2009, having regard to recital 8 of the preamble to Regulation 2018/605?










3.


If the answer to that second question is in the negative, is it sufficient for the competent authority to make an assessment solely on the basis of data known at the time of the application, even if the scientific and technical knowledge reflected therein is no longer current at the time when the contested decision is taken?






(1)  Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 of 19 April 2018 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 by setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties (OJ 2018 L 101, p. 33).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1).
Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran 2022/C 192/05
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2022192EN.01008901.xml










11.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 192/89






Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
(2022/C 192/05)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Kamran DANESHJOO (no. 27), person appearing in Annex II, Part I, to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Annex IX, Part I, to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The following information is also brought to the attention of Brigadier-General Javad DARVISH-VAND, IRGC (no. 1), Rear Admiral Ali FADAVI (no. 2), Mr Parviz FATAH (no. 3), Brigadier-General Seyyed Mahdi FARAHI, IRGC (no. 4), Brigadier-General Mostafa Mohammad NAJJAR, IRGC (no. 7), Mr Rostam QASEMI (no. 10), Brigadier-General Ali SHAMSHIRI, IRGC (no. 12), Brigadier-General Ahmad VAHIDI, IRGC (no. 13), Mr Ali Ashraf NOURI (no. 17) and Mr Hojatoleslam Ali SAIDI (no. 18), persons appearing in Annex II, Part II, to Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Annex IX, Part II, to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons and entities with new statements of reasons. The persons and entities concerned are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for their designation, by 18 May 2022, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu


(1)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.
Case T-255/22: Action brought on 11 May 2022 — Cham Wings Airlines v Council
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, external border of the EU, international sanctions, legal person, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022294EN.01003201.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/32






Action brought on 11 May 2022 — Cham Wings Airlines v Council
(Case T-255/22)
(2022/C 294/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cham Wings Airlines LLC (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: L. Cloquet, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;










—


Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (2), as far as it applies to the applicant; and










—


Order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.





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 a manifest error of assessment of the facts by the defendant in that it took the view that the applicant contributes to activities by the Lukashenka regime that facilitate the illegal crossing of the external borders of the Union, while such view is plainly unfounded.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the general principle of proportionality, in that the economic consequences of the restrictive measures made against the applicant are disastrous and disproportionate compared to the purposes the contested acts are supposed to reach, which they fail to do.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, in that the reasoning given for the contested acts is purely a formality.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the right of defence and right to a fair trial in that the applicant was never able to secure a hearing prior to the imposing of the disputed restrictive measures, and in that it was unable to exercise correctly his right of defence, including its right to a fair trial, notably guaranteed by virtue of article 6 § 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 48 § 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. If such prior hearing had taken place in a timely fashion, the applicant would have been able to inform the Council of its communication of 13 November 2021 to the EU Commission and of the shutdown of its activities in Minsk.






(1)  OJ 2022, L 46, p. 97.

(2)  OJ 2022, L 46, p. 3.
Case T-93/21: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2022 — Creaticon v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — EU figurative mark SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE — Earlier national word mark SKINTEGRITY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, hairdressing and beauty care, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022266EN.01002202.xml










11.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/22






Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2022 — Creaticon v EUIPO — Paul Hartmann (SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE)
(Case T-93/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - EU figurative mark SK SKINTEGRA THE RARE MOLECULE - Earlier national word mark SKINTEGRITY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 266/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Creaticon d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: P. Krmpotić, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and modification of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 December 2020 (Case R 847/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Creaticon d.o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 138, 19.4.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10682 – VALEO / VSEA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 201/01
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric vehicle, engine, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2022201EN.01000101.xml










18.5.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10682 – VALEO / VSEA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 201/01)
On 11 May 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 32022M10682. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-913/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2022 — Fininvest and Berlusconi v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB — Assessment of acquisitions of qualifying holdings — Opposition to the acquisition of a qualifying holding — Non-retroactivity — Res judicata — Application of national transposing measures — Rights of the defence — Right of access to the file — Right to be heard — New plea — Primacy of EU law — Right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2022-05-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, credit institution, financial supervision, powers of the institutions (EU), primacy of EU law, retroactivity of a law, right to justice, rights of the defence, shareholding








C_2022266EN.01001901.xml










11.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/19






Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2022 — Fininvest and Berlusconi v ECB
(Case T-913/16) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Specific supervisory tasks assigned to the ECB - Assessment of acquisitions of qualifying holdings - Opposition to the acquisition of a qualifying holding - Non-retroactivity - Res judicata - Application of national transposing measures - Rights of the defence - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard - New plea - Primacy of EU law - Right to effective judicial protection)
(2022/C 266/22)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) (Rome, Italy), Silvio Berlusconi (Rome) (represented by: R. Vaccarella, A. Di Porto, M. Carpinelli, A. Saccucci, B. Nascimbene, N. Ghedini and A. Baldaccini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta and G. Buono, acting as Agents, and by M. Lamandini, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the ECB’s decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 7LVZJ6XRIE7VNZ4UBX81/4 of 25 October 2016, by which the latter refused to authorise the acquisition of a holding by Fininvest and by Mr Silvio Berlusconi in the credit institution Banca Mediolanum SpA.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Finanziaria d’investimento Fininvest SpA (Fininvest) and Mr Silvio Berlusconi to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB);










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 27.2.2017.