do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10929 – GENERALI REAL ESTATE / MUNICH RE / SAXON LAND) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 471/05
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, insurance, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2022471EN.01000501.xml










12.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10929 – GENERALI REAL ESTATE / MUNICH RE / SAXON LAND)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 471/05)
On 5 December 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 32022M10929. 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.10930 – POST / BGL / BCEE / BIL / BDL / i-HUB) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 478/01
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Luxembourg, banking, credit institution, data processing, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control, postal and telecommunications services








C_2022478EN.01000101.xml










16.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 478/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10930 – POST / BGL / BCEE / BIL / BDL / i-HUB)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 478/01)
On 5 December 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 32022M10930. 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.10955 – KIRK / LFI / ATP / FERROSAN MEDICAL DEVICES) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 474/06
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, medical device, medical research, merger control, pension scheme








C_2022474EN.01002901.xml










14.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 474/29






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10955 – KIRK / LFI / ATP / FERROSAN MEDICAL DEVICES)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 474/06)
On 5 December 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 32022M10955. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-755/22: Action brought on 5 December 2022 — TG v Commission
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, health expenditure, illness, indemnification, staff regulations (EU)








C_2023024EN.01008202.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/82






Action brought on 5 December 2022 — TG v Commission
(Case T-755/22)
(2023/C 24/110)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: TG (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;
consequently:










—


annul the decision of 11 March 2022 refusing to recognise the applicant’s illness as a serious illness for the purposes of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union;










—


annul the decision of 25 August 2022 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 29 April 2022;










—


order the defendant to pay damages, assessed ex aequo et bono, in the amount of EUR 5 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the general implementing provisions for the reimbursement of medical expenses adopted by Commission Decision C(2007) 3195 of 2 July 2007, as amended by the decision of 12 May 2020.
Case T-758/22: Action brought on 5 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Fujian Daocheng Electronic Commerce (Shoes)
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2023035EN.01007701.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/77






Action brought on 5 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Fujian Daocheng Electronic Commerce (Shoes)
(Case T-758/22)
(2023/C 35/97)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fujian Daocheng Electronic Commerce Co. Ltd (Quanzhou, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 8 367 742-0013

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2022 in Case R 1876/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 6(1)(a) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Case C-744/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nessebar (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 December 2022 — Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia EAD v PQ
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, consumer protection, lawyer, legal aid, legal expenses, remuneration of work








C_2023071EN.01001701.xml










27.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nessebar (Bulgaria) lodged on 5 December 2022 — Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia EAD v PQ
(Case C-744/22)
(2023/C 71/20)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Nessebar

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vodosnabdyavane i kanalizatsia EAD

Defendant: PQ

Questions referred







1.


Are the provisions of Article 2(5) and Article 7(2)(1) of the Naredba 1 ot 09.07.2004g. za minimalnite razmeri na advokatskite vaznagrazhdenia (Regulation No. 1 of 9 July 2004 on the minimum amount of lawyers’ fees), which are applicable pursuant to Article 47(6) of the Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure; ‘the GPK’) and which concern the rules for setting the fee of the special representative of an absent defendant for the purposes of proceedings such as the main proceedings, which relate to an action against a consumer for payment for insignificant water consumption — consistent with Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, read in conjunction with Article 169(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,, if the consumer, should he or she be unsuccessful in that claim, will also be ordered, in accordance with Article 78(1) of the GPK, to pay the costs of the special representative?










2.


Is the provision in Article 47(6) of the GPK, read in conjunction with Article 26(1) of the Zakon za pravnta pomosht (Law on legal aid), on the appointment of a special representative in the event that the consumer cannot be found at his or her address — according to which the fee is to be set by the court, and may be set at an amount below the minimum, whereas another body, the Bar Council, is responsible for designating special representatives, the Bar Council having the ability, in its discretion and solely for the reason that it does not agree with the fee set by the court, to refuse to designate a special representative — consistent with Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 169(1) TFEU?










3.


Is the court entitled, by applying EU law directly, in particular the provisions of Article 19(1) TEU, read in conjunction with Article 169(1) TFEU, in the event of a refusal to designate a lawyer as a special representative, to apply other rules for ensuring the protection of consumer rights in judicial proceedings which do not, in principle, apply in such situations under the national law of the Republic of Bulgaria, such as the granting of legal aid under Article 95(1) of the GPK without the consumer having so requested?
Case T-471/19: Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — Eland Oil & Gas v Commission
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, foreign enterprise, group of companies, tax avoidance, tax exemption, tax law








C_2023045EN.01003601.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/36






Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — Eland Oil & Gas v Commission
(Case T-471/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/57)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Case T-758/19: Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — W.S. Atkins International v Commission
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, foreign enterprise, group of companies, tax avoidance, tax exemption, tax law








C_2023045EN.01003602.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/36






Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — W.S. Atkins International v Commission
(Case T-758/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/58)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Case T-756/22: Action brought on 5 December 2022 — Roethig López v EUIPO — William Grant & Sons Irish Brands (AMAZONIAN GIN COMPANY)
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2023024EN.01008301.xml










23.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/83






Action brought on 5 December 2022 — Roethig López v EUIPO — William Grant & Sons Irish Brands (AMAZONIAN GIN COMPANY)
(Case T-756/22)
(2023/C 24/111)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Eric Roethig López (Lluchmajor, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: William Grant & Sons Irish Brands Ltd (Dublin, Ireland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark AMAZONIAN GIN COMPANY — European Union trade mark No 17 952 939

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 September 2022 in Case R 1978/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener to pay all the costs of the dispute before General Court, including those relating to the procedure before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-782/19: Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — St Schrader Holding Company UK v Commission
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, foreign enterprise, free movement of capital, group of companies, reimbursement of aid, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2023045EN.01003605.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/36






Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — St Schrader Holding Company UK v Commission
(Case T-782/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/61)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10880 – DUFRY / AUTOGRILL) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 462/08
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, retail trade, tourism








C_2022462EN.01002401.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/24






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10880 – DUFRY / AUTOGRILL)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 462/08)

1.   
On 25 November 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:






—


Dufry AG (‘Dufry’, Switzerland),










—


Autogrill S.p.A. (‘Autogrill’, Italy).




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


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






—


Dufry is a global travel retail business that operates retail outlets in airports and other transport hubs,










—


Autogrill: is a global provider of food and beverage services to travellers, which operates at airports, motorways and other transport hubs.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10880 – DUFRY / AUTOGRILL
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10957 – CURA / GENERALI / T-C PEP PROPERTY) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 462/09
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control, real estate business








C_2022462EN.01002501.xml










5.12.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 462/25






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10957 – CURA / GENERALI / T-C PEP PROPERTY)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 462/09)

1.   
On 25 November 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:






—


KG CURA Vermögensverwaltung G.m.b.H. & Co. (‘CURA’, Germany),










—


Generali SCF S.à r.l. (‘Generali’, Luxembourg),










—


T-C PEP Property S.à r.l. (the ‘Target’, Luxembourg).




CURA and Generali will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of the Target.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


CURA is active in real estate in the shopping, office, traffic, hotel, residential and industrial sectors predominantly in Europe, with minor activities in the Americas and Asia,










—


Generali is ultimately controlled by Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A, the Italian parent company of an international group of companies active in the insurance and financial sector with worldwide activities,










—


the Target is the owner of a real estate housing the PEP Einkaufscenter Neuperlach, a shopping centre in Munich, Germany.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10957 – CURA / GENERALI / T-C PEP PROPERTY
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-771/19: Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — Experian Finance 2012 v Commission
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, foreign enterprise, free movement of capital, group of companies, reimbursement of aid, right of establishment, tax exemption








C_2023045EN.01003603.xml










6.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/36






Order of the General Court of 5 December 2022 — Experian Finance 2012 v Commission
(Case T-771/19) (1)

(2023/C 45/59)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-757/22: Action brought on 5 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Road Star Group (Footwear)
Date: 2022-12-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, footwear industry








C_2023035EN.01007601.xml










30.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/76






Action brought on 5 December 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Road Star Group (Footwear)
(Case T-757/22)
(2023/C 35/96)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Road Star Group (Nupaky, Czech Republic)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 4 160 273-0015

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 September 2022 in Case R 1900/2021–3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 6(1)(a) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.