do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-200/23: Action brought on 17 April 2023 — Domingo Alonso Group v EUIPO — Ald Automotive and Salvador Caetano Auto (my CARFLIX)
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, franchising, parking area, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2023235EN.01004401.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/44






Action brought on 17 April 2023 — Domingo Alonso Group v EUIPO — Ald Automotive and Salvador Caetano Auto (my CARFLIX)
(Case T-200/23)
(2023/C 235/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Domingo Alonso Group, SL (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J. García Domínguez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ald Automotive, SA (Majadahonda, Spain), Salvador Caetano Auto (SGPS), SA (Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court Domingo Alonso Group, SL and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Salvador Caetano Auto (SGPS), SA

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark my CARFLIX — European Union trade mark No 18 124 505

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 October 2022 in Case R 2213/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision and order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the earlier proceedings before the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO.

Plea in law

Infringement of Article 60(1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
European Parliament decision of 17 April 2023 concerning the possibility of hearing the Member concerned remotely in procedures on immunity (interpretation of Rule 9(6) of the Rules of Procedure) (2023/2032(REG))
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, interpretation of the law, parliamentary immunity, rules of procedure, teleworking








C_202300453EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/453


1.12.2023






P9_TA(2023)0095
Hearing of the Member concerned in procedures on immunity (Interpretation of Rule 9(6) of the Rules of Procedure)
European Parliament decision of 17 April 2023 concerning the possibility of hearing the Member concerned remotely in procedures on immunity (interpretation of Rule 9(6) of the Rules of Procedure) (2023/2032(REG))
(C/2023/453)



The European Parliament,







—


having regard to the letter of 27 March 2023 from the Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs,










—


having regard to Rule 236 of its Rules of Procedure,













1.


Decides to append the following interpretation to Rule 9(6) of the Rules of Procedure:

                     ‘Rule 216(1), second subparagraph, does not prevent the committee responsible from allowing the remote participation of the Member concerned in an immunity hearing in camera, in accordance with the principles the committee laid down pursuant to Rule 9(13), if that Member is, owing to exceptional and objective circumstances, unable to attend the hearing physically.’
                  












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and the Commission, for information.






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/453/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-198/23: Action brought on 17 April 2023 — USF/EPSU-CJ v Court of Justice of the European Union
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, civil servants’ union, dismissal, dissemination of information, personnel administration, powers of the institutions (EU), right to information, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU), trade union








C_2023205EN.01003801.xml










12.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 205/38






Action brought on 17 April 2023 — USF/EPSU-CJ v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case T-198/23)
(2023/C 205/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Union Syndicale Fédérale/European Public Service Union — Court of Justice (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. N. Louis and M. Maes, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:
hereby order:






—


the action admissible and well-founded,










—


the decision to remove the applicant from the list of recipients of the publication of individual decisions disseminated from the address ‘Distribution décisions URC’ and from the IN-OUT Lists, non-existent or, at the very least, cancelled;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





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 the lack of competence of the authority which took the contested decision;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringment of the right to good administration conferred by Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which includes the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union which requires any institution of the European Union to publish within it all individual decisions relating to the appointment, establishment, the promotion, transfer, determination of the administrative position and termination of service of an official;










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the framework agreement signed between the appointing authority of the Court and the applicant, which provides that the decisions of the appointing authority concerning a trade union or professional organisation which is representative and signatory of that agreement cannot be taken without the knowledge of the Registrar, as has happened in the present case.
Case C-240/23, Herbaria Kräuterparadies: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2023 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, food inspection, labelling, organic certification, organic farming, organic product, processed food product








C_2023216EN.01003001.xml










19.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 216/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2023 — Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH v Freistaat Bayern
(Case C-240/23, Herbaria Kräuterparadies)
(2023/C 216/40)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Herbaria Kräuterparadies GmbH

Respondent on a point of law: Freistaat Bayern

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 33(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the organic production logo of the European Union may be used for a processed foodstuff which is imported for the purpose of placing it on the market within the Union as an organic product, under the conditions laid down in Article 45(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, but, because it contains, in addition to plant products, minerals and vitamins of non-plant origin, does not meet the requirements of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 in conjunction with Annex II, Part IV, point 2.2.2(f) thereto?










2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, does it follow from Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the organic production logo of the European Union may be used for a processed foodstuff if it originates from the European Union and complies with the equivalent production and control provisions of a third country recognised in accordance with Article 48(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, but does not meet the requirements of Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848 in conjunction with Annex II, Part IV, point 2.2.2(f) thereto?










3.


Does it follow from Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that such a processed product originating from the European Union may bear terms referring to organic production, in accordance with Article 30(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/848, without using the organic production logo of the European Union?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (OJ 2018 L 150, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11064 – MACQUARIE / IVANHOE / RHP PARTNERS MANAGER GP / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 142/01
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2023142EN.01000101.xml










25.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 142/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11064 – MACQUARIE / IVANHOE / RHP PARTNERS MANAGER GP / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 142/01)
On 17 April 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 32023M11064. 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.11076 – TOTALENERGIES / TOTAL EREN)
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, energy production, gas industry, merger control, oil industry, renewable energy








C_202400786EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/786


10.1.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11076 – TOTALENERGIES / TOTAL EREN)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/786)

On 17 April 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 32023M11076. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  
            OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/786/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-246/23 P: Appeal brought on 17 April 2023 by Societatea Naţională ‘Aeroportul Internaţional Timişoara — Traian Vuia’ SA (AITTV) against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 February 2023 in Case T-522/20, Carpatair v Commission
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, State aid, Timis, airline, airport, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, modernisation aid








C_2023235EN.01001801.xml










3.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/18






Appeal brought on 17 April 2023 by Societatea Naţională ‘Aeroportul Internaţional Timişoara — Traian Vuia’ SA (AITTV) against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 8 February 2023 in Case T-522/20, Carpatair v Commission
(Case C-246/23 P)
(2023/C 235/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Societatea Naţională ‘Aeroportul Internaţional Timişoara — Traian Vuia’ SA (AITTV) (represented by: V. Power, R. Hourihan, Solicitors)

Other parties to the proceedings: Carpatair SA, European Commission, Wizz Air Hungary Légiközlekedési Zrt. (Wizz Air Hungary Zrt.)

Form of order sought

The Appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the General Court Judgment and dismiss the action for annulment brought by Carpatair against the Decision (1), and either give its own judgment in the matter dismissing Carpatair's case in full (including its third and fourth pleas left undecided by the General Court) or remit the matter to the General Court for a rehearing, and










—


reserve the question of Carpatair's and AITTV's costs if the case is remitted to the General Court or, if this Honourable Court substitutes its own judgement then order Carpatair to pay its own costs and those of AITTV at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Appellant submits that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the following grounds:
Plea 1 — erred in law by deeming Carpatair's action admissible despite Carpatair not being ‘substantially affected’ by the contested arrangements;
Plea 2 — erred in law in finding that the arrangements were selective;
Plea 3 — erred in law by rejecting the admissibility of the ex ante assessment;
Plea 4 — disregarded relevant considerations (e.g., by deeming the Oxera report as ‘irrelevant’), and
Plea 5 — failed to sufficiently take into account evidence submitted by the Commission, Wizz and AITTV relating to the material lack of competition between Wizz and Carpatair when the arrangements were concluded.


(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1428 of 24 February 2020 ON THE STATE AID SA.31662 — C/2011 (ex NN/2011) implemented by Romania for Timișoara International Airport — Wizz Air (OJ 2021, L 308, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 14 April 2023 2023/C 133/01
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023133EN.01000101.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 April 2023
(2023/C 133/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1057 




JPY


Japanese yen


146,60 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4510 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88440 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,3455 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9827 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,4020 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,341 




HUF


Hungarian forint


373,68 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6435 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9423 




TRY


Turkish lira


21,4218 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6309 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4725 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6797 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7588 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4665 




KRW


South Korean won


1 438,43 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9352 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5761 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 291,79 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8673 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,122 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,660 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4410 




MXN


Mexican peso


19,9598 




INR


Indian rupee


90,3595 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-252/23 P: Appeal brought on 17 April 2023 by European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 07 February 2023 in Case T-81/22, Euranimi v Commission
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: India, Indonesia, anti-dumping duty, flat product, import (EU), originating product, steel








C_2023189EN.01002601.xml










30.5.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/26






Appeal brought on 17 April 2023 by European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 07 February 2023 in Case T-81/22, Euranimi v Commission
(Case C-252/23 P)
(2023/C 189/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Association of Non-Integrated Metal Importers & distributors (Euranimi) (represented by: M. Campa, D. Rovetta, V. Villante, avvocati, P. Gjørtler, advokat,)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


declare admissible the present appeal;










—


set aside the order under appeal and declare the action brought by Euranimi admissible;










—


send back the case to the General Court for examining the substance of Euranimi’s action;










—


order the European Commission to bear the legal cost of the present appeal and of the procedure at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three main pleas in law:
First plea: error in law in interpreting the Article 263 (4) TFEU and in particular the requisite of ‘direct and individual concern’ — wrong qualification of facts.
Second plea: error in law in interpreting the final limb of Article 263 (4) TFEU and the requisite and notion of regulatory act which does not entail implementing measures — wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.
Third plea: wrong qualification of facts and distortion of evidence.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11008 – CDC GROUP / EDF / ENGIE / IN GROUPE / ARCHIPELS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 145/02
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: blockchain, data processing, economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, gas supply, merger control, retail selling, wholesale selling








C_2023145EN.01000201.xml










27.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11008 – CDC GROUP / EDF / ENGIE / IN GROUPE / ARCHIPELS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 145/02)
On 17 April 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 French 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 32023M11008. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11055 – EQUITIX / CUBE / RIVER RIDGE) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 133/03
Date: 2023-04-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, economic concentration, energy efficiency, investment, investment company, merger control, waste management








C_2023133EN.01000701.xml










17.4.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 133/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11055 – EQUITIX / CUBE / RIVER RIDGE)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 133/03)

1.   
On 4 April 2013, 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:






—


Equitix Holdings Limited (‘Equitix’, United Kingdom),










—


Cube Infrastructure Managers (‘Cube’, Luxembourg),










—


River Ridge Holdings Limited (‘River Ridge’, United Kingdom).




Equitix and Cube will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of River Ridge.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


Equitix is an investor, developer and fund manager of infrastructure and energy-efficiency assets, established in the UK,










—


Cube is an investor and fund manager of European infrastructure investments,










—


River Ridge is a waste management company operating in Northern Ireland, United Kingdom.






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.11055 – EQUITIX / CUBE / RIVER RIDGE
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.