do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-680/20, Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations Srl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Dominant position — Imputation, to the producer, of actions of its distributors — Existence of contractual links between the producer and the distributors — Concept of ‘economic unit’ — Scope — Abuse — Exclusivity clause — Need to demonstrate the effects on the market)
Date: 2023-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, distributor, dominant position








C_2023083EN.01000301.xml










6.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 83/3






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations Srl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
(Case C-680/20, (1) Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Dominant position - Imputation, to the producer, of actions of its distributors - Existence of contractual links between the producer and the distributors - Concept of ‘economic unit’ - Scope - Abuse - Exclusivity clause - Need to demonstrate the effects on the market)
(2023/C 83/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Unilever Italia Mkt. Operations Srl

Defendant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Intervening party: La Bomba Snc

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the actions of distributors forming part of the distribution network for goods and services of a producer in a dominant position may be imputed to that producer if it is established that those actions were not adopted independently by those distributors, but form part of a policy that is decided unilaterally by that producer and implemented through those distributors;










2.


Article 102 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, where there are exclusivity clauses in distribution contracts, a competition authority is required, in order to find an abuse of a dominant position, to establish, in the light of all the relevant circumstances and in view of, where applicable, the economic analyses produced by the undertaking in a dominant position as regards the inability of the conduct at issue to exclude competitors that are as efficient as the dominant undertaking from the market, that those clauses are capable of restricting competition. The use of an ‘as efficient competitor’ test is optional. However, if the results of such a test are submitted by the undertaking concerned during the administrative procedure, the competition authority is required to assess the probative value of those results.






(1)  OJ C 79, 8.3.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 18 January 2023 2023/C 18/03
Date: 2023-01-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023018EN.01000501.xml










19.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

18 January 2023
(2023/C 18/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0839 




JPY


Japanese yen


139,79 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4399 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87530 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,1735 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9906 




ISK


Iceland króna


154,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6553 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,954 




HUF


Hungarian forint


396,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6983 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9388 




TRY


Turkish lira


20,3706 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5413 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4505 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4814 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6683 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4280 




KRW


South Korean won


1 337,16 




ZAR


South African rand


18,3960 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,3193 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 307,20 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6754 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,170 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


35,633 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5252 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,2193 




INR


Indian rupee


88,1420 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-21/23, Lindenapotheke: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2023 — ND v DR
Date: 2023-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customers, data protection, data-processing law, electronic commerce, medical data, over-the-counter drug, personal data, pharmacist, right of action, supervisory body








C_2023155EN.01002801.xml










2.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 19 January 2023 — ND v DR
(Case C-21/23, Lindenapotheke)
(2023/C 155/35)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant and appellant in the appeal on a point of law: ND

Applicant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: DR

Questions referred







1.


Do the rules in Chapter VIII of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) preclude national rules which — alongside the powers of intervention of the supervisory authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the regulation and the options for legal redress for data subjects — empower competitors to bring proceedings for infringements of the General Data Protection Regulation against the infringer before the civil courts on the basis of the prohibition of unfair commercial practices?










2.


Do the data that the customers of a pharmacist who acts as a seller on an online sales platform enter when ordering pharmacy-only but not prescription-only medicines on the sales platform (customer’s name, delivery address and information required for individualising the pharmacy-only medicine ordered) constitute data concerning health within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and of Article 8(1) of the Data Protection Directive? (2)







(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).
Case T-325/21: Order of the General Court of 19 January 2023 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Vitalsss plus) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2023-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, non-alcoholic beverage, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023104EN.01003202.xml










20.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 104/32






Order of the General Court of 19 January 2023 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Aldi Einkauf (Vitalsss plus)
(Case T-325/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
(2023/C 104/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland) (represented by: E. Jaroszyńska-Kozłowska and R. Skubisz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 April 2021(Cases R 503/2020-1 and R 647/2020-1).

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).










3.


Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. OHG shall bear its own costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 297, 26.7.2021.
Decision (EU) 2023/367 of the European Parliament of 19 January 2023 extending the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of the Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware
Date: 2023-01-19
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EP Committee, committee of inquiry, espionage, operation of the Institutions, protection of communications, software, surveillance








L_2023050EN.01006501.xml










17.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 50/65








            DECISION (EU) 2023/367 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
         
of 19 January 2023
         
extending the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry to investigate the use of the Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,






—


having regard to the proposal by the Conference of Presidents,










—


having regard to Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry (1),










—


having regard to Decision (EU) 2022/480 of the European Parliament of 10 March 2022 on setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate the use of the Pegasus and equivalent surveillance spyware, and defining the subject of the inquiry, as well as the responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office of the committee (2),










—


having regard to Rule 208(11) of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas the Committee of Inquiry requested an extension of its term of office in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate fully and properly;





1.   

Decides to extend by three months the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry.






For the European Parliament


The President

R. METSOLA
               





(1)  
            OJ L 113, 19.5.1995, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 98, 25.3.2022, p. 72.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11001 – SKIPJACK / MITSUI O.S.K. LINES / INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 18/07
Date: 2023-01-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic concentration, holding company, logistics, maritime transport, merger control, storage








C_2023018EN.01001401.xml










19.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/14






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11001 – SKIPJACK / MITSUI O.S.K. LINES / INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 18/07)

1.   
On 11 January 2023, 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:






—


Skipjack Terminal Holdings, L.P. (‘Skipjack’, USA), controlled by Macquarie Group Limited (‘Macquaire’, Australia),










—


Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. (‘MOL’, Japan),










—


International Transportation Inc. (‘ITI’, United States), controlled by MOL.




Skipjack and MOL will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of ITI, the holding company of TraPac LLC (‘TraPac’, United States).
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


Skipjack is a special purpose vehicle managed by Macquaire, a global provider of assets management services,










—


MOL is active in the provision of marine transportation, warehousing and cargo handling services and other activities,










—


ITI is the holding company of TraPac. TraPac operates marine container terminal stevedoring services at terminals in Los Angeles and Oakland (California).






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.11001 – SKIPJACK / MITSUI O.S.K. LINES / INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
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.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1363 of 3 August 2022 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 2,4-D, azoxystrobin, cyhalofop-butyl, cymoxanil, fenhexamid, flazasulfuron, florasulam, fluroxypyr, iprovalicarb and silthiofam in or on certain products (Official Journal of the European Union L 205 of 5 August 2022)
Date: 2023-01-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: animal product, consumer protection, crop production, food inspection, food safety, foodstuff, pesticide, pesticide residue








L_2023017EN.01009901.xml










19.1.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 17/99







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1363 of 3 August 2022 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for 2,4-D, azoxystrobin, cyhalofop-butyl, cymoxanil, fenhexamid, flazasulfuron, florasulam, fluroxypyr, iprovalicarb and silthiofam in or on certain products

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 205 of 5 August 2022
)


On page 211, in the 10th column of the header of the table in the Annex:
for:


                  ‘Fluroxypyr (sum of fluroxypyr, its salts, its esters, and its conjugates, expressed as fluroxypyr) (R)’,

read:


                  ‘Fluroxypyr (sum of fluroxypyr, its salts, its esters, and its conjugates, expressed as fluroxypyr) (R) (A)’.

On page 226, in the Annex:
for:


                  ‘Fluroxypyr (sum of fluroxypyr, its salts, its esters, and its conjugates, expressed as fluroxypyr) (R)
(R) = The residue definition differs for the following combinations pesticide-code number:
Fluroxypyr — code 1000000 except 1040000: Fluroxypyr (sum of fluroxypyr and its salts, expressed as fluroxypyr)’,

read:


                  ‘Fluroxypyr (sum of fluroxypyr, its salts, its esters, and its conjugates, expressed as fluroxypyr) (R) (A)
(R) = The residue definition differs for the following combinations pesticide-code number:
Fluroxypyr — code 1000000 except 1040000: Fluroxypyr (sum of fluroxypyr and its salts, expressed as fluroxypyr)
(A) = The EU reference labs identified the reference standard for fluroxypyr conjugates as commercially not available. When re-viewing the MRL, the Commission will take into account the commercial availability of the reference standard referred to in the first sentence by 1 July 2016, or, if that reference standard is not commercially available by that date, the unavailability of it.’.
Case C-22/23, Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 January 2023 — SIA Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Date: 2023-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: business activity, establishment, legal person, money laundering, natural person, property leasing, provision of services, terrorism financing








C_2023127EN.01001902.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 19 January 2023 — SIA Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-22/23, Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi)
(2023/C 127/23)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA Citadeles nekustamie īpašumi

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred







1.


Is the concept of ‘company service provider’ set out in Article [3](7)(c) of Directive 2015/849 (1) to be interpreted as referring to a discrete service which does not arise from a transaction involving the letting of self-owned real estate and is not linked to such a transaction, irrespective of whether or not the [lessor] has consented to the lessee registering its registered office at the leased property and carrying out transactions there?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the negative, is the concept of ‘company service provider’ set out in Article [3](7)(c) of Directive 2015/849 to be interpreted as meaning that, where a natural person lets a property, that person should be subject to the same requirements as a legal person or legal arrangement, regardless of the factual circumstances, for example, the number of properties which the natural person owns and lets, whether the letting of the property is unrelated to the business, or other circumstances?






(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ 2015 L 141, p. 73).
Case T-12/23: Action brought on 19 January 2023 — Beauty Boutique v EUIPO — Lightningbolt Europe (Device of a lightning)
Date: 2023-01-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing industry, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023094EN.01005601.xml










13.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/56






Action brought on 19 January 2023 — Beauty Boutique v EUIPO — Lightningbolt Europe (Device of a lightning)
(Case T-12/23)
(2023/C 94/67)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Beauty Boutique sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Nowakowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lightningbolt Europe SA (São Cosme Vale, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark (device of a lightning) — Application for registration No 18 249 030

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2022 in Case R 668/2022-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener (if applicable) to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.