do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-207/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — Polynt v ECHA (REACH — Evaluation of substances — Hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride — ECHA decision requesting one or more additional tests — Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Appeal brought before the Board of Appeal — Error of law)
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: anhydride, chemical product, dangerous substance, product safety, testing








C_2023278EN.01001901.xml










7.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/19






Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — Polynt v ECHA
(Case T-207/21) (1)

(REACH - Evaluation of substances - Hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride - ECHA decision requesting one or more additional tests - Article 40 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Appeal brought before the Board of Appeal - Error of law)
(2023/C 278/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, P. Sellar and I. Zonca, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: N. Herbatschek, T. Basmatzi and M. Goodacre, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action brought under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Decision A-015-2019 of the Board of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 9 February 2021, by way of which the latter dismissed the appeal brought by Polynt SpA against the decision relating to a testing proposal submitted in the applicant’s registration dossier for the substance hexahydro-4-methylphthalic anhydride.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Polynt SpA to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11115 – ADNOC / ÖBAG /OMV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 226/09
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical industry, economic concentration, fuel, gas industry, holding company, investment company, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, wholesale selling








C_2023226EN.01001001.xml










28.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/10






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11115 – ADNOC / ÖBAG /OMV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 226/09)

1.   
On 19 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:






—


Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) P.J.S.C. (‘ADNOC’, United Arab Emirates),










—


Österreichische Beteiligungs AG (‘ÖBAG’, Austria), and










—


OMV Aktiengesellschaft (‘OMV’, Austria).




ADNOC and ÖBAG will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of OMV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


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






—


ADNOC is a global energy and petrochemicals group operating across the entire hydrocarbon value chain through a network of fully integrated businesses,










—


ÖBAG is an autonomous state-owned holding company which administers state investments,










—


OMV, currently a solely controlled subsidiary of ÖBAG, is a global energy and petrochemicals group active in upstream and downstream oil and gas activities, as well as in the production and commercialisation of polyolefins and base chemicals.






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.11115 – ADNOC / ÖBAG /OMV
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.
Case T-239/21: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — Dana Astra v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus — Freezing of funds — Maintaining of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned — Error of assessment)
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, freezing of assets, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2023278EN.01001902.xml










7.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 278/19






Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — Dana Astra v Council
(Case T-239/21) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of the situation in Belarus - Freezing of funds - Maintaining of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons, entities and bodies concerned - Error of assessment)
(2023/C 278/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dana Astra IOOO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by M. Lester, Barrister-at-Law, P. Sellar and J. Beck, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by S. Van Overmeire and T. Haas, acting as Agents

Re:
By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment






—


of Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/353 of 25 February 2021 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 189) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/339 of 25 February 2021 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2021 L 68, p. 29),










—


of Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/307 of 24 February 2022 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 97), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/300 of 24 February 2022 implementing Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Belarus (OJ 2022 L 46, p. 3),
in so far as those acts concern the applicant.





Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dana Astra IOOO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.






(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 June 2023 2023/C 226/05
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2023226EN.01000501.xml










28.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 June 2023
(2023/C 226/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0951 




JPY


Japanese yen


157,14 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4474 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85990 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,7405 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9789 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,7563 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


23,609 




HUF


Hungarian forint


368,50 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4283 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9610 




TRY


Turkish lira


28,5192 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6369 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4408 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5782 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7739 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4767 




KRW


South Korean won


1 424,20 




ZAR


South African rand


20,2234 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8976 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 427,69 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,1097 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,547 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,602 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,2311 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,7091 




INR


Indian rupee


89,7945 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-394/23, Mousse: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 28 June 2023 — Association Mousse v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), SNCF Connect
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data collection, data protection, data-processing law, personal data








C_2023329EN.01001101.xml










18.9.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 28 June 2023 — Association Mousse v Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), SNCF Connect
(Case C-394/23, Mousse)
(2023/C 329/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Association Mousse

Defendants: Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (CNIL), SNCF Connect

Questions referred







1.


In order to assess whether data collection is adequate, relevant and limited to what is necessary, within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) of the GDPR (1) and the need for processing in accordance with Article 6(1)(b) and (f) of that regulation, may account be taken of commonly accepted practices in civil, commercial and administrative communications, with the result that the collection of data relating to customers’ civil titles, which is limited to ‘Mr’ or ‘Ms’, may be regarded as necessary, without this being precluded by the principle of data minimisation?










2.


In order to assess the need for the compulsory collection and processing of data relating to customers’ civil titles, even though some customers consider that they do not come under either of the two civil titles and that the collection of such data is not relevant in their case, should account be taken of the fact that those customers may, after having provided those data to the data controller in order to benefit from the service offered, exercise their right to object to the use and storage of those data by relying on their particular situation, in accordance with Article 21 of the GDPR?






(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.11078 – CONTARGO / ZIEGLER / SCHMID / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2023/C 306/01
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, economic concentration, harbour installation, logistics, merger control, provision of services








C_2023306EN.01000101.xml










30.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 306/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11078 – CONTARGO / ZIEGLER / SCHMID / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2023/C 306/01)
On 28 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 German language 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 32023M11078. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-393/23, Athenian Brewery and Heineken: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 June 2023 — Athenian Brewery SA, Heineken NV v Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, economic activity, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, parent company, subsidiary








C_202300115EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/115


16.10.2023





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 28 June 2023 — Athenian Brewery SA, Heineken NV v Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA
(Case C-393/23, Athenian Brewery and Heineken)
(C/2023/115)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Athenian Brewery SA, Heineken NV

Defendant: Macedonian Thrace Brewery SA

Questions referred







1.


In a case such as that at issue in these proceedings, must the court of the parent company’s domicile, when assessing its jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia (1) Regulation with regard to a subsidiary established in another Member State, in the context of the close-connection requirement referred to in that provision, rely on the presumption — accepted as regards substantive competition law — that the parent company exercises decisive influence on the economic activity of the subsidiary which is the subject of the proceedings?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, how is the criterion formulated in the judgments Kolassa (2) and Universal Music (3) to be interpreted? In such a case, where the parent company’s decisive influence on the economic activity of the subsidiary is disputed, is it sufficient for the assumption of jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation as regards the subsidiary concerned, that the existence of such a decisive influence cannot be excluded a priori?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 289).

(2)  C-375/13.

(3)  C-12/15.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/115/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Withdrawal of Commission proposals 2023/C 226/07
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: proposal (EU)








C_2023226EN.01000801.xml










28.6.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/8






Withdrawal of Commission proposals
(2023/C 226/07)

List of withdrawn proposals








Document


Inter-institutional procedure


Title





A Europe fit for the Digital Age





COM(2019)208 final


2019/0101 (COD)


Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information




The Commission has approved the withdrawal during its 2454th meeting (26 April 2023). Reasons for withdrawing the listed proposal are provided in COM(2022)548 final of 18 October 2022 (Annex IV).
Case T-145/22: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle — Earlier national trade marks — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Concept of ‘agent’ or ‘representative’ — Requirement for a direct contractual agreement)
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, liqueur, registered trade mark, spirits, trade-mark law








C_2023286EN.01002501.xml










14.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 286/25






Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — CEDC International v EUIPO — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)
(Case T-145/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle - Earlier national trade marks - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Concept of ‘agent’ or ‘representative’ - Requirement for a direct contractual agreement)
(2023/C 286/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Fijałkowski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Stoyanova-Valchanova and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the partial annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 December 2021 (Case R 1954/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CEDC International sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 198, 16.5.2022.
Case C-402/23, Dimas: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2023 — Dimas v Ministerio Fiscal
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European arrest warrant, European citizenship, arrest, bilateral agreement, extradition, freedom of movement, national, third country








C_202300011EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2023/11


9.10.2023





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 28 June 2023 — Dimas v Ministerio Fiscal
(Case C-402/23, Dimas)
(C/2023/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dimas

Defendant: Ministerio Fiscal

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 18 and Article 21(1) TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition on the surrender of nationals contained in a bilateral extradition treaty concluded between a Member State of the European Union and a third State must be extended to the nationals of other Member States of the European Union which do not accede to an extradition requested by the third State on grounds of their nationality, when those nationals are present in the territory of the requested Member State exercising their right of free movement?










2.


If the Member State of the European Union of which the person sought is a national refuses to issue an arrest warrant in order to prosecute the offence for which the extradition is requested, since, if that person had been arrested in that State, on account of his or her nationality, that person would not have been extradited, does the decision of that Member State regarding its national bind the requested Member State in the case of an extradition requested by a third State, when the national in question is present in the territory of the requested Member State exercising his or her right of free movement?






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/11/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-452/22: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — Hofmeir Magnetics v EUIPO — Healthfactories (Hofmag) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Hofmag — Earlier non-registered word mark HOFMAG — Relative ground for refusal — No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2023-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electro-magnetic equipment, ionising radiation, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2023286EN.01002502.xml










14.8.2023   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 286/25






Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2023 — Hofmeir Magnetics v EUIPO — Healthfactories (Hofmag)
(Case T-452/22) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Hofmag - Earlier non-registered word mark HOFMAG - Relative ground for refusal - No use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2023/C 286/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hofmeir Magnetics Ltd (Witney, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Baur, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Healthfactories GmbH (Saaldorf-Surheim, Germany) (represented by C. Vischer, lawyer)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 May 2022 (Case R 1367/2021-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hofmeir Magnetics Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Healthfactories GmbH;










3.


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






(1)  OJ C 340, 5.9.2022