do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-73/23: Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Tertianum v EUIPO — DPF (TERTIANUM)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business management, consultancy, health service, nursing care, property leasing, provision of services, registered trade mark, tourism, trade-mark law








C_2023121EN.01001101.xml










3.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/11






Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Tertianum v EUIPO — DPF (TERTIANUM)
(Case T-73/23)
(2023/C 121/15)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Tertianum AG (Dübendorf, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DPF AG (Berlin, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark TERTIANUM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 305 367

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 November 2022 in Case R 1706/2021-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) read in conjunction with Article 8(2)(a)(iii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-483/22, KI (Transfer of a Portuguese notary’s office): Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Coimbra — Juízo do Trabalho da Figueira da Foz — Portugal) — KI v YB, JN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Requirement to present the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Lack of sufficient information — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, labour law, social legislation








C_2023121EN.01000201.xml










3.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 121/2






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Coimbra — Juízo do Trabalho da Figueira da Foz — Portugal) — KI v YB, JN
(Case C-483/22, (1) KI (Transfer of a Portuguese notary’s office))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Requirement to present the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Lack of sufficient information - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2023/C 121/02)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Coimbra — Juízo do Trabalho da Figueira da Foz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KI

Defendants: YB, JN

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Coimbra — Juízo do Trabalho da Figueira da Foz (District Court, Coimbra — Employment Tribunal, Figueira da Foz, Portugal) by decision of 7 July 2021 is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  Date of filing: 19.7.2022.
Case C-633/21: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) and Annex XI — Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (Greece) — Article 23(1) — Annex XV — Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ — Appropriate measures)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Attica, EU environmental policy, air quality, atmospheric pollutant, infringement of EU law, oxide, pollution control measures








C_2023127EN.01001101.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/11






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-633/21) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) and Annex XI - Systematic and persistent exceedance of the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (Greece) - Article 23(1) - Annex XV - Exceedance period to be ‘as short as possible’ - Appropriate measures)
(2023/C 127/12)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that:






—


by systematically and persistently exceeding, from 2010 to 2020 inclusive, the annual limit value for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the agglomeration of Athens (EL 0003), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Article 13 of, and Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and










—


by failing to adopt, as from 11 June 2010, appropriate measures to ensure compliance with the annual limit value for ΝΟ2 in that agglomeration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50, read in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular the obligation to ensure that the air quality plans set out appropriate measures so that the exceedance period of that limit value can be kept as short as possible;














2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 513, 20.12.2021.
Case C-710/21, IEF Service: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — IEF Service GmbH v HB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 2008/94/EC — Article 9(1) — Undertaking that has its registered office in one Member State and offers its services in another Member State — Worker whose place of residence is in that other Member State — Work performed in the Member State in which the worker’s employer has its registered office and, one week out of two, in the Member State in which the worker resides — Determining which Member State’s guarantee institution is responsible for meeting outstanding wage claims)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, employer, establishment, financial solvency, labour dispute, nationality of legal persons, pay, residence, teleworking








C_2023127EN.01001301.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/13






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — IEF Service GmbH v HB
(Case C-710/21, (1) IEF Service)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 9(1) - Undertaking that has its registered office in one Member State and offers its services in another Member State - Worker whose place of residence is in that other Member State - Work performed in the Member State in which the worker’s employer has its registered office and, one week out of two, in the Member State in which the worker resides - Determining which Member State’s guarantee institution is responsible for meeting outstanding wage claims)
(2023/C 127/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IEF Service GmbH

Defendant: HB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer
must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine which Member State’s guarantee institution is responsible for meeting employees’ outstanding claims, it must be considered that an employer in a state of insolvency does not carry out activities in the territories of at least two Member States, within the meaning of that provision, where the employment contract of the worker in question provides that his or her primary and habitual place of employment is in the territory of the Member State in which the employer has its registered office, but during an equal proportion of his or her working time that worker performs his or her duties remotely from another Member State where his or her main place of residence is situated.


(1)  OJ C 165, 19.4.2022.
Case C-472/21, Monz Handelsgesellschaft International: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Monz Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co. KG v Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Design — Directive 98/71/EC — Article 3(3) and (4) — Conditions for obtaining protection for a component part of a complex product — Concepts of ‘visibility’ and ‘normal use’ — Visibility of a component part of a complex product during normal use of that product by the end user)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, product design








C_2023127EN.01000801.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/8






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Monz Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co. KG v Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG
(Case C-472/21, (1) Monz Handelsgesellschaft International)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Design - Directive 98/71/EC - Article 3(3) and (4) - Conditions for obtaining protection for a component part of a complex product - Concepts of ‘visibility’ and ‘normal use’ - Visibility of a component part of a complex product during normal use of that product by the end user)
(2023/C 127/09)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Monz Handelsgesellschaft International mbH & Co. KG

Respondent: Büchel GmbH & Co. Fahrzeugtechnik KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(3) and (4) of Directive 98/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs
must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of ‘visibility’, laid down in that provision, that is to be met in order for a design applied to or incorporated in a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product to be eligible to benefit from the legal protection of designs, must be assessed in the light of a situation of normal use of that complex product, so that the component part concerned, once it has been incorporated into that product, remains visible during such use. To that end, the visibility of a component part of a complex product during its ‘normal use’ by the end user must be assessed from the perspective of that user as well as from the perspective of an external observer, and that normal use must cover acts performed during the principal use of a complex product as well as acts which must customarily be carried out by the end user in connection with such use, with the exception of maintenance, servicing and repair work.


(1)  OJ C 471, 22.11.2021.
Case C-675/21, Strong Charon: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A. v 2045-Empresa de de Segurança, S.A., FL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Directive 2001/23/EC — Scope — Refusal by the transferee to recognise the transfer of the employment contract — Definition of ‘transfer’ — Definition of ‘economic unit’ — Absence of a contractual link between the transferor and the transferee)
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labour law, provision of services, supply, team work, transfer of businesses, work contract








C_2023127EN.01001201.xml










11.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 127/12






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 February 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A. v 2045-Empresa de de Segurança, S.A., FL
(Case C-675/21, (1) Strong Charon)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Directive 2001/23/EC - Scope - Refusal by the transferee to recognise the transfer of the employment contract - Definition of ‘transfer’ - Definition of ‘economic unit’ - Absence of a contractual link between the transferor and the transferee)
(2023/C 127/13)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Strong Charon, Soluções de Segurança, S.A.

Defendant: 2045-Empresa de Segurança, S.A., FL

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses,
must be interpreted as meaning that the absence of a contractual link between the transferor and the transferee of an undertaking or a business, or part of an undertaking or a business, is irrelevant to establishing the existence of a transfer, for the purposes of that directive.










2.


Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23










3.


must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which a service provider which, in order to meet the needs of one of its customers, had assigned to the latter a team composed of a certain number of workers, and is replaced, by that customer, by a new service provider to supply the same services, and (i) the latter service provider takes on only a very small number of the workers in that team, without those workers having the specific skills and knowledge essential to the performance of those services for that customer, and (ii) the new service provider does not take over such tangible or intangible property as would have been necessary for the continuity of those services, cannot fall within the scope of that directive.






(1)  OJ C 148, 4.4.2022.
Case C-89/23, Companhia União de Crédito Popular: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 16 February 2023 — Companhia União de Crédito Popular, SARL v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, claim, debt, guarantee, loan, redemption, sale, tax exemption








C_2023189EN.01001201.xml










30.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 16 February 2023 — Companhia União de Crédito Popular, SARL v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-89/23, Companhia União de Crédito Popular)
(2023/C 189/17)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Companhia União de Crédito Popular, SARL

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred

For the purposes of determining whether the 11 % commission which the law (Article 25 of Decree-Law No 365/99 of 17 September 1999) allots to the lender for the sale of pledged goods is eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 135(1)(b) of the VAT Directive (1) (corresponding to Article 9(27)(a) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Valor Acrescentado (Value Added Tax Code)), can the sale of the pledged goods (Article 19 et seq. of Decree-Law No 365/99 of 17 September 1999), where the borrower fails to pay in accordance with the legal conditions, be regarded as an ancillary service to the services provided by the lender (activity of lending secured by a pledge)?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10834 – AGROFERT / BOREALIS NITRO) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 57/08
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, farming sector, fertiliser, fertiliser industry, food industry, merger control, nitrogen, organic chemical, supplier








C_2023057EN.01002301.xml










16.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/23






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10834 – AGROFERT / BOREALIS NITRO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 57/08)

1.   
On 6 February 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:






—


AGROFERT, a.s. (‘AGROFERT’, Czechia), owned by two private trusts incorporated pursuant to Czech law,










—


Borealis Nitro, currently controlled by OMV Aktiengesellschaft (‘OMV’, Austria); consisting of Borealis Chimie S.A.S (France); Borealis Produits et Engrais Chimiques du Rhin S.A.S. (PEC Rhin, France), Borealis L.A.T France S.A.S. (France), Borealis Agrolinz Melamine Deutschland GmbH (Germany), Borealis Agrolinz Melamine GmbH (Austria), Borealis L.A.T GmbH (Austria), Feboran EOOD (Bulgaria), and Borealis L.A.T Italia s.r.l. (Italy).




AGROFERT will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Borealis Nitro.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares announced on 2 June 2022.


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






—


AGROFERT is active in, among others, the agricultural, food and chemical industries. Its chemical division includes the production of fertilisers and technical nitrogen products,










—


Borealis Nitro is the fertiliser, technical nitrogen and melamine business unit of the Borealis Group. Borealis Nitro supplies various forms of nitrogen fertilisers, both to farmers directly and wholesalers or retailers.






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.10834 – AGROFERT / BOREALIS NITRO
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
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’).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11009 – PON.BIKE / VWFS / GLINICKE / DML) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 86/02
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric vehicle, hire purchase, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, provision of services, rental business, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle parts, vehicle rental








C_2023086EN.01000201.xml










8.3.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 86/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11009 – PON.BIKE / VWFS / GLINICKE / DML)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 86/02)
On 16 February 2023, 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 32023M11009. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU Request made by a Contracting Entity 2023/C 57/10
Date: 2023-02-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Lithuania, award of contract, postal service, provision of services








C_2023057EN.01002601.xml










16.2.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/26






Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a Contracting Entity
(2023/C 57/10)
On 6 January 2023 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The request has been submitted by Lietuvos paštas, AB. The first working day following receipt of the request is 9 January 2023.
This request concerns activities relating to the provision of express parcel delivery services in Lithuania.
Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive’. The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.
The Commission is allowed a period of 105 (2) working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 14 June 2023.
According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning the same activities in Lithuania submitted before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).

(2)  Pursuant to paragraph 1a of Annex IV to Directive 2014/25/EU in combination with the second subparagraph of said paragraph 1.