do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11084 – SMRP / SAS AUTOSYSTEMTECHNIK) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 218/05
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, light-duty vehicle, merger control, motor car, motor vehicle industry, supplier, vehicle parts








C_2023218EN.01000701.xml










21.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/7






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11084 – SMRP / SAS AUTOSYSTEMTECHNIK)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 218/05)

1.   
On 14 June 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:






—


Samvardhana Motherson Automotive Systems Group B.V. (‘SMRP,’ Netherlands), wholly owned by the Samvardhana Motherson International Limited (‘SAMIL,’ India),










—


SAS Autosystemtechnik GmbH (‘SAS,’ Germany), a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of the Faurecia SE (‘Faurecia,’ France).




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


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






—


SMRP is a global supplier of automotive components, namely of instrument panels, door panels, centre consoles and decorative trims, and the assembly of cockpit modules,










—


SAS is specialised in the assembly of cockpit modules, centre consoles and other interior modules for passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.






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.11084 – SMRP / SAS AUTOSYSTEMTECHNIK
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’).
Case T-514/22: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — Vitromed v EUIPO — Vitromed Healthcare (VITROMED Germany) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark VITROMED Germany — International registration of the earlier figurative mark VITROMED — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, artificial reproduction, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023271EN.01002901.xml










31.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/29






Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — Vitromed v EUIPO — Vitromed Healthcare (VITROMED Germany)
(Case T-514/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark VITROMED Germany - International registration of the earlier figurative mark VITROMED - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 271/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Vitromed GmbH (Jena, Germany) (represented by: M. Linß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and E. Nicolás Gómez, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vitromed Healthcare (Jaipur, India) (represented by: S. Eble, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 June 2022 (Case R 1670/2021-2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Vitromed GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vitromed Healthcare;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.
Case C-383/23, ILVA: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 21 June 2023 — Anklagemyndigheden v ILVA A/S
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, competition law, data protection, data-processing law, legal status, personal data, supervisory body, turnover, type of business








C_2023304EN.01001301.xml










28.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 21 June 2023 — Anklagemyndigheden v ILVA A/S
(Case C-383/23, ILVA)
(2023/C 304/16)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Anklagemyndigheden

Respondent: ILVA A/S

Questions referred







1.


Must the term ‘undertaking’ in Article 83(4) to (6) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) be understood as an undertaking within the meaning of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, in conjunction with recital 150 of that regulation, and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning EU competition law, so that the term ‘undertaking’ covers any entity engaged in an economic activity, regardless of that entity’s legal status and the way in which it is financed?










2.


If the answer to the Question 1 is in the affirmative, must Article 83(4) to (6) of the General Data Protection Regulation be interpreted as meaning that, when imposing a fine on an undertaking, regard must be had to the total worldwide annual turnover of the economic entity of which the undertaking forms part, or only the total worldwide annual turnover of the undertaking itself?






(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).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11123 – SUMITOMO / VODAFONE / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 226/04
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Internet of Things, economic concentration, information service, investment company, merger control, software, telecommunications








C_2023226EN.01000401.xml










28.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11123 – SUMITOMO / VODAFONE / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 226/04)
On 21 June 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32023M11123. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-438/22: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — International British Education XXI v EUIPO — Saint George’s School (IBE ST. GEORGE’S) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark IBE ST. GEORGE’S — Earlier national figurative mark ST. GEORGE’S SCHOOL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cultural event, education, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sporting event, teaching, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2023271EN.01002801.xml










31.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/28






Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — International British Education XXI v EUIPO — Saint George’s School (IBE ST. GEORGE’S)
(Case T-438/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark IBE ST. GEORGE’S - Earlier national figurative mark ST. GEORGE’S SCHOOL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 271/40)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: International British Education XXI SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Saint George’s School SL (Fornells de la Selva, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 11 May 2022 (R 2226/2020-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders International British Education XXI SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Saint George’s School SL;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 20 June 2023 2023/C 218/04
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023218EN.01000601.xml










21.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 June 2023
(2023/C 218/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0933 




JPY


Japanese yen


154,51 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4491 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85705 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,7580 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9808 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7155 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,756 




HUF


Hungarian forint


372,55 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4463 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9629 




TRY


Turkish lira


25,7687 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6120 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4473 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5560 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7714 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4688 




KRW


South Korean won


1 406,33 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9724 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8462 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 410,11 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0729 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,763 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


37,981 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2376 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,6991 




INR


Indian rupee


89,7525 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11129 – BAIN CAPITAL / APFARGE / WHI) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 227/04
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment, investment company, merger control, software








C_2023227EN.01000401.xml










29.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11129 – BAIN CAPITAL / APFARGE / WHI)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 227/04)
On 21 June 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 (https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search). 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 32023M11129. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-347/22: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — Rauch Furnace Technology v EUIPO — Musto et Bureau (melting crucible) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Community design representing a melting crucible — Prior design — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — No different overall impression — Disclosure of prior design — Articles 6, 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Evidence filed in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Article 29(1) and (5), and Article 81(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 — Facts or evidence relied on for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002)
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, scientific apparatus








C_2023271EN.01002701.xml










31.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/27






Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — Rauch Furnace Technology v EUIPO — Musto et Bureau (melting crucible)
(Case T-347/22) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Community design representing a melting crucible - Prior design - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - No different overall impression - Disclosure of prior design - Articles 6, 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Evidence filed in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Article 29(1) and (5), and Article 81(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 - Facts or evidence relied on for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 63 of Regulation No 6/2002)
(2023/C 271/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH (Gmunden, Austria) (represented by: M. Traxler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Musto et Bureau Srl (Osteria Grande, Italy) (represented by: F. De Sanzuane, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 March 2022 (Case R 1697/2021-3).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Rauch Furnace Technology GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Musto et Bureau Srl;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 1.8.2022.
Case T-748/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission (Dumping — Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in China to imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand — Anti-circumvention investigation — Circumvention — Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Sufficient evidence — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Thailand, aluminium, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, thin sheet








C_2023271EN.01002601.xml










31.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/26






Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group and Others v Commission
(Case T-748/21) (1)

(Dumping - Extension of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in China to imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand - Anti-circumvention investigation - Circumvention - Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Sufficient evidence - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons)
(2023/C 271/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, (Hangzhou, China), Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong, Thailand), Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd, (Rayong), (represented by G. Coppo and G. Pregno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission, (represented by P. Němečková, Agent),

Re:

By their action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1474 of 14 September 2021 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2384 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/271 on imports of certain aluminium foil originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain aluminium foil consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not (OJ 2021 L 325, p. 6).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hangzhou Dingsheng Industrial Group Co., Ltd, Dingheng New Materials Co., Ltd and Thai Ding Li New Materials Co., Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 84, 21.2.2022.
Case T-571/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — UG v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Termination of contract — Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS — Incompetence — Conduct in the service and attitude at work incompatible with the interests of the service — Obligation to state reasons — Right to be heard — Entitlement to parental leave — Article 42a of the Staff Regulations — Application of the minimum requirements of Directives 2010/18/EU and 2002/14/EC to officials and other servants of the European Union — Articles 27, 30 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Workers’ right to information and consultation — Article 24b of the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal — Indirect challenge to definitive acts — Inadmissibility — Principle of proportionality — Misuse of powers — Liability)
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, dismissal, full-time employment, liability, parental leave, principle of proportionality, professional qualifications, right to information, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2023271EN.01002201.xml










31.7.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/22






Judgment of the General Court of 21 June 2023 — UG v Commission
(Case T-571/17 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Termination of contract - Article 47(c)(i) of the CEOS - Incompetence - Conduct in the service and attitude at work incompatible with the interests of the service - Obligation to state reasons - Right to be heard - Entitlement to parental leave - Article 42a of the Staff Regulations - Application of the minimum requirements of Directives 2010/18/EU and 2002/14/EC to officials and other servants of the European Union - Articles 27, 30 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Workers’ right to information and consultation - Article 24b of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal - Indirect challenge to definitive acts - Inadmissibility - Principle of proportionality - Misuse of powers - Liability)
(2023/C 271/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: UG (represented by: M. Richard, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu-Bouyon, acting as Agent)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, in essence, first, the annulment of the decision of 17 October 2016 by which the European Commission terminated her contract as a member of the contract staff and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm she claims to have suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders UG and the European Commission to bear their own costs in the cases registered under numbers T-571/17 and C-249/20 P;










3.


Orders UG to bear her own costs and to pay a third of the costs incurred by the Commission in the case registered under the number T-571/17 RENV.






(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1308 of 21 June 2023 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Novigradska dagnja’ (PDO))
Date: 2023-06-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: County of Zadar, Croatia, bivalve mollusc, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2023162EN.01000101.xml










28.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 162/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2023/1308
of 21 June 2023
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Novigradska dagnja’ (PDO))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Croatia’s application to register the name ‘Novigradska dagnja’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Novigradska dagnja’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Novigradska dagnja’ (PDO) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.7. Fresh fish, molluscs and crustaceans and products derived therefrom, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 21 June 2023.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 80, 3.3.2023, p. 84.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).