do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10705 – BLACKSTONE / CARLYLE / GOLDMAN SACHS / PRIMA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 231/02
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, banking, economic concentration, insurance, investment, investment company, merger control, provision of services, securities








C_2022231EN.01000201.xml










15.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10705 – BLACKSTONE / CARLYLE / GOLDMAN SACHS / PRIMA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 231/02)
On 8 June 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 32022M10705. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-104/22 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Hungary v Commission (Interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — European Structural and Investment Funds — Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 — Documents originating in a Member State — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Structural and Investment Funds, access to EU information, decision-making, operational programme








C_2022294EN.01003101.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/31






Order of the President of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-104/22 R)
(Interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - European Structural and Investment Funds - Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 - Documents originating in a Member State - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balancing of interests)
(2022/C 294/45)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar, A. Spina and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application, based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU, the applicant seeks suspension of operation of the European Commission’s Decision of 14 December 2021, adopted in accordance with 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), concerning the confirmatory application GestDem 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from its authorities.

Operative part of the order







1.


Operation of the European Commission’s decision of 14 December 2021, adopted in accordance with 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, concerning the confirmatory application GestDem 2021/2808, which is aimed at ensuring public access to documents originating from the Hungarian authorities, is suspended in so far as that decision grants access to documents originating from those authorities.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-369/22 P: Appeal brought on 8 June 2022 by Air France SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-338/17, Air France v European Commission
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, cartel, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, powers of the institutions (EU), price agreement, proof, sanction (EU)








C_2022303EN.01002101.xml










8.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 303/21






Appeal brought on 8 June 2022 by Air France SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 30 March 2022 in Case T-338/17, Air France v European Commission
(Case C-369/22 P)
(2022/C 303/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Air France SA (represented by: A. Wachsmann, M. Blayney, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


Principally,






—


Set aside the judgment under appeal in its entirety;










—


Consequently, annul European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air France SA, as well as the grounds on which its operative part is based, in so far as that decision imposes a fine on Air France SA; and














—


In the alternative, reduce to an appropriate amount, on the basis of Article 261 TFEU, the fine of EUR 182 920 000 imposed jointly and severally on Air France-KLM and Air France SA by Article 3(b) of European Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight);










—


In any event, order the European Commission to pay all the costs, including those incurred by Air France SA before the General Court.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal is based, principally, on a ground for setting aside the judgment under appeal and, in the alternative, on two grounds for variation of that judgment.
Principally, by the first ground of appeal, Air France SA submits that the General Court failed correctly to assess the Commission’s jurisdiction to apply Article 101 TFEU to inbound services, that is to say, from a third country to the EEA. Air France SA maintains that the analysis of the qualified effects is vitiated by errors of law and that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons.
In the alternative, by the second ground of appeal, Air France SA submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons and the principle of equal treatment, as regards the taking into account of regulatory regimes.
By its third and final ground of appeal, Air France SA contends that the General Court made errors of law by reversing the burden of proof when it found that Air France SA participated uninterruptedly in the infringement between 7 December 1999 and 14 February 2006.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10575 – BOUYGUES / EQUANS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 223/06
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air conditioning, building industry, economic concentration, electrical engineering, holding company, information technology, mass media, merger control, provision of services, rail transport, telecommunications








C_2022223EN.01005201.xml










8.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 223/52






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10575 – BOUYGUES / EQUANS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 223/06)

1.   
On 30 May 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:






—


Bouygues S.A. (‘Bouygues’, France),










—


Equans S.A.S. (‘Equans’, France).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


Bouygues is a holding company of a diversified industrial group active in the construction, transport infrastructure construction and maintenance, real estate development, media and telecommunications sectors. Bouygues also provides electrical engineering services through Colas Rail, a wholly owned subsidiary of Colas. Colas Rail provides electrical engineering services for railway infrastructures, including railway electrification (installation and maintenance of catenaries and overhead contact lines) and railway signalling.










—


Equans is a global company active in the multi-technical services sector. Equans’ activities focus on electrical, mechanical and heat, ventilation and air-conditioning engineering, refrigeration solutions, facility management, and digitization and Information and Communication Technology. Equans also provides railway electrification services (installation and maintenance of catenaries and overhead contact lines) through Powerlines, Ineo SCLE Ferroviaire and Fabricom.






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.10575 – BOUYGUES / EQUANS
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-621/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — EMCS v EUAA (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of temporary agency workers for EASO — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Award of the contract to another tenderer — Equal treatment — Principle of transparency — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Union Agency for Asylum, award of contract, damages, equal treatment, financial loss, public procurement, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2022294EN.01002502.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/25






Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — EMCS v EUAA
(Case T-621/20) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of temporary agency workers for EASO - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Award of the contract to another tenderer - Equal treatment - Principle of transparency - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 294/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: EMCS ltd. (Msida, Malta) (represented by: P. Kuypers and N. Groot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) (represented by: P. Eyckmans and J. van Heel, acting as Agents, and by V. Ost and M. Umbach, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of the decision of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) of 23 July 2020, entitled ‘Call for tenders EASO/2020/789 Provision of Temporary Agency Workers for EASO in Malta’, rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the call for tenders and awarding the contract to another tenderer and, second, under Article 268 TFEU, for compensation of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders EMCS ltd. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.
Case T-340/22: Action brought on 8 June 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, alcoholic beverage, business management, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2022284EN.01005601.xml










25.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/56






Action brought on 8 June 2022 — Etablissements Nicolas v EUIPO — St. Nicolaus (NICOLAS)
(Case T-340/22)
(2022/C 284/77)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Etablissements Nicolas (Thiais, France) (represented by: T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: St. Nicolaus a.s. (Liptovský Mikuláš, Slovakia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark NICOLAS — International registration designating the European Union No 1 228 435

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 March 2022 in Case R 1780/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the course of proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-738/20: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark HOLUX — Earlier international registration in respect of the word mark HOLUX — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metal product, metals, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022294EN.01002601.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/26






Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Deutschtec v EUIPO — Group A (HOLUX)
(Case T-738/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark HOLUX - Earlier international registration in respect of the word mark HOLUX - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 294/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Deutschtec GmbH (Petershagen/Eggersdorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Arnade, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Group A NV (Hasselt, Belgium)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 October 2020 (Case R 223/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Deutschtec GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.
Case T-293/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Muschaweck v EUIPO — Conze (UM) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark UM — Genuine use of the mark — Use with the consent of the proprietor — Use in the form in which the mark was registered — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Representation by the proprietor of the trade mark — Evidence of use submitted within the time limit set)
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agro-industry, agroforestry, animal health, hairdressing and beauty care, health control, health service, horticulture, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022294EN.01002801.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/28






Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Muschaweck v EUIPO — Conze (UM)
(Case T-293/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark UM - Genuine use of the mark - Use with the consent of the proprietor - Use in the form in which the mark was registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Representation by the proprietor of the trade mark - Evidence of use submitted within the time limit set)
(2022/C 294/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Ulrike Muschaweck (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Konle, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Joachim Conze (Munich) (represented by: H. Bolte, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2021 (Case R 2260/2019-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Ms Muschaweck and Mr Conze.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Ulrike Muschaweck to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 278, 12.7.2021.
Case C-657/21: Order of the President of the Court of 8 June 2022 — European Parliament v European Commission
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU budget, action for annulment (EU), application of EU law, budget policy, financial management, implementation of the budget, operation of the Institutions, regulation (EU), rule of law








C_2022368EN.01002002.xml










26.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 368/20






Order of the President of the Court of 8 June 2022 — European Parliament v European Commission
(Case C-657/21) (1)

(2022/C 368/33)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 11, 10.1.2022.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10743 – TOWERBROOK / GSF) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 234/01
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cleaning industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2022234EN.01000101.xml










17.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10743 – TOWERBROOK / GSF)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 234/01)
On 8 June 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 32022M10743. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-744/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark MAXFLOW — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, care of mothers and infants, early childhood, medical device, mother's milk, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022294EN.01003002.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/30






Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Medela v EUIPO (MAXFLOW)
(Case T-744/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark MAXFLOW - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 294/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Medela Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Hartmann and S. Fröhlich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: T. Klee and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 August 2021 (Case R 876/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Medela Holding AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
Case T-92/21: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Darment v Commission (Environment — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Decision to register — Authorisation to use a quota — Compliance with a judgment of the General Court — Principle of sound administration)
Date: 2022-06-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU Emissions Trading Scheme, EU emission allowance, access to EU information, fluorine, greenhouse gas, reduction of gas emissions, sanction (EU), tradeable emission permit








C_2022294EN.01002702.xml










1.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 294/27






Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2022 — Darment v Commission
(Case T-92/21) (1)

(Environment - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision to register - Authorisation to use a quota - Compliance with a judgment of the General Court - Principle of sound administration)
(2022/C 294/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, K. Talabér-Ritz and B. De Meester, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its application under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Darment Oy, seeks the annulment of the European Commission’s decision of 15 December 2020 to enter its quota for the year 2021 and for the years 2019 and 2020 in the electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) on the market (‘the HFC registry’) (‘the contested decision’).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Darment Oy to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.