do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-129/24: Action brought on 28 February 2024 – Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health/EUIPO – Multi Access (Device of six Chinese characters)
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, EU trade mark, beverage, medical plant, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_202402784EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2784


29.4.2024






Action brought on 28 February 2024 – Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health/EUIPO – Multi Access (Device of six Chinese characters)


(Case T-129/24)

(C/2024/2784)
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health Co. Ltd (Guangzhou, China) (represented by: P. Groß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Multi Access Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands)

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: European Union figurative mark (Device of six Chinese characters) – European Union trade mark No 8 293 631
         

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2023 in Case R 330/2023-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the contested mark invalid on the basis of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009;










—


order EUIPO and Multi Access Limited, in case that the latter decides to intervene, to bear their own costs;










—


order EUIPO and Multi Access Limited, in case that the latter decides to intervene, to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including those the latter party incurred before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council).






ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2784/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-157/24, GMG: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 February 2024 – GMG Srl, in liquidation v Ministero della Giustizia
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, deadline for payment, interest, protection of communications, provision of services, public prosecutor's department, service








C_202403443EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3443


10.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 February 2024 – GMG Srl, in liquidation v Ministero della Giustizia


(Case C-157/24, GMG)

(C/2024/3443)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: GMG Srl, in liquidation

Respondent in cassation: Ministero della Giustizia

Questions referred







1.


Should Directive 2000/35/EC, (1) as amended by Directive 2011/7/EU, (2) and, in particular, Article 1, Article 2(1) and (2), and Article 4(3) of Directive 2011/7, be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation or a national practice that:






(a)


excludes the classification of services, provided against remuneration by charterers of the equipment used for wiretapping at the request of public prosecutors’ offices, as commercial transactions within the meaning of Directive 2011/7, making them subject to the substantive and procedural regime covering extraordinary legal costs?










(b)


consequently excludes the abovementioned services between charterers and public prosecutors’ offices from the rules governing interest which are laid down by that directive?














2.


Should Directive 2000/35, as amended by Directive 2011/7, and, in particular, Article 10(1) of the latter directive, be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation or a national practice that lays down an indeterminate time limit (‘without delay’) for the settlement of fees due to a service provider, with the result that those creditor rights cannot be asserted in an effectively enforceable and fully satisfactory manner?






(1)  Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).

(2)  Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3443/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-556/22: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2024 – House Foods Group v CPVO (SK20)
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, bulb vegetable, plant breeding, plant variety right








C_202402612EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2612


22.4.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2024 – House Foods Group v CPVO (SK20)


(Case T-556/22)
                (1)

(Plant varieties - Grant of a Community plant variety right for the plant variety SK20 - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - No interest in bringing proceedings - Article 81(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94)
(C/2024/2612)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: House Foods Group, Inc. (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (represented by: M. García-Moncó Fuente and O. Lamberti, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of 1 July 2022 (Case A 018/2021).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders House Foods Group, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 424, 7.11.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2612/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-318/22: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2024 – Passalacqua v Commission
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, administrator, indemnification, promotion, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_202402610EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2610


22.4.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2024 – Passalacqua v Commission


(Case T-318/22)
                (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2021 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 11 - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Rule of correspondence - Consideration of comparative merits - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Liability - Material and non-material damage)
(C/2024/2610)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Roberto Passalacqua (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and L. Hohenecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the European Commission’s decision not to promote him to grade AD 11 under the 2021 promotion exercise (‘the contested decision’), the Commission’s decision of 1 April 2022 rejecting complaint R/620/21 and the Commission’s decision to promote to grade AD 11 the officials entered on the list of officials promoted under the 2021 promotion exercise and, secondly, in the alternative, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered as a result of the contested decision and the decision of his hierarchical superiors not to publish the full version of the presentation given during the round table meeting organised on 14 January 2021.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Roberto Passalacqua to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 276, 18.7.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2610/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – Cases where the Commission raises no objections – SA.109991Text with EEA relevance.
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Austria, State aid, Upper Austria, aid to undertakings, control of State aid








C_202401756EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1756


28.2.2024






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
SA.109991
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1756)







Date of adoption of the decision


19.12.2023




Aid number


SA.109991




Member State


Austria




Region


Oberösterreich




Title (title and/or name of the beneficiary)


Richtlinien für Konsolidierungsbürgschaften




Legal basis


Bürgschaftsrichtlinien der Oberösterreichische Kreditgarantiegesellschaft




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Restructuring firms in difficulty




Form of aid


Guarantee, Loan/ Repayable advances




Budget


Overall budget: 4 000 000  EUR
Annual budget: 2 000 000  EUR




Intensity


 




Duration


1.1.2024 — 31.12.2025




Economic sectors


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Name and address of the granting authority







Oberösterreichische Kreditgarantiegesellschaft




Bethlehemstraße 3, 4020 Linz








Other information


Prolongation of the aid scheme already approved under SA.40965 and SA.64197




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
https://competition-cases.ec.europa.eu/search?caseInstrument=SA


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1756/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-168/24, PMJC: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 February 2024 – PMJC SAS v [W] [X], [M] [X], [X] Créative SAS
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, product design, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202403444EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3444


10.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 February 2024 – PMJC SAS v [W] [X], [M] [X], [X] Créative SAS


(Case C-168/24, PMJC)

(C/2024/3444)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: PMJC SAS

Defendant: [W] [X], [M] [X], [X] Créative SAS

Question referred

Must Article 12(2)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 20(b) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of 16 December 2015
             (2) to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as precluding the revocation of a trade mark consisting of the surname of a designer on the grounds that it is used after the assignment in such a way as to make the public actually believe that that designer is still involved in the design of the goods bearing the mark, when that is no longer the case?


(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3444/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case C-156/24, STM: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 February 2024 – STM Srl v Ministero della Giustizia
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appeal, claim, debt, hiring, injunction, interest, legal expenses, provision of services, public prosecutor's department, right to an effective remedy








C_202403442EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3442


10.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 February 2024 – STM Srl v Ministero della Giustizia


(Case C-156/24, STM)

(C/2024/3442)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in cassation: STM Srl

Respondent in cassation: Ministero della Giustizia

Questions referred







1.


Should the principle of sincere cooperation referred to in Article 4(3) TEU, the fundamental right to an effective remedy before a tribunal enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Directive 2011/7/EU (1)– in particular, Article 2(1) and (2) thereof – be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation or a national practice that (i) excludes the classification of services performed for remuneration by charterers at the request of public prosecutors’ offices as ‘commercial transactions’ within the meaning of Directive 2011/7, and (ii) consequently excludes claims made by charterers for services performed for public prosecutors’ offices from the rules governing interest which are laid down by that directive?










2.


Should the principle of sincere cooperation referred to in Article 4(3) TEU, the fundamental right to an effective remedy before a tribunal enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Directive 2011/7 – in particular, Article 10(1) thereof – be interpreted as precluding a piece of national legislation or a national practice that does not lay down a fixed time limit for the settlement of fees due to a service provider and/or that also provides that such rights may be enforced only by means of the remedies provided for in decreto del Presidente della Repubblica n. 115/2002 – Testo Unico in materia di spese di giustizia (Presidential Decree No 115/2002 – Consolidated text regarding legal costs) and in particular only by means of the remedy of objecting to the order for taxation of costs?






(1)  Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (recast) (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3442/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Euro exchange rates – 27 February 2024
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_202401150EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1150


28.2.2024






Euro exchange rates (1)


            27 February 2024
         
(C/2024/1150)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0856 




JPY


Japanese yen


163,04 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4551 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85620 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,1805 




CHF


Swiss franc


0,9544 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,4310 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,332 




HUF


Hungarian forint


390,20 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3153 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9668 




TRY


Turkish lira


33,8132 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6565 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4650 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4947 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7601 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4584 




KRW


South Korean won


1 445,31 




ZAR


South African rand


20,7720 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8140 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 976,12 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,1696 




PHP


Philippine peso


60,902 




RUB


Russian rouble


 




THB


Thai baht


38,932 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3945 




MXN


Mexican peso


18,5221 




INR


Indian rupee


89,9755 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1150/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Case T-442/22: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2024 – PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, appointment of members, equal treatment, indemnification, principle of legal certainty, public prosecutor's department, rights of the defence








C_202402611EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/2611


22.4.2024






Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2024 – PU v European Public Prosecutor’s Office


(Case T-442/22)
                (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Institutional law - Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 - Appointment of the European Delegated Prosecutors of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office - Refusal to appoint one of the candidates nominated by 
[confidential]
 - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Confirmatory measure - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility - Causal link)
(C/2024/2611)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: PU (represented by: P. Yatagantzidis and D. Tsarapatsanis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Public Prosecutor’s Office (represented by: L. De Matteis, F.-R. Radu and C. Charalambous, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action, the applicant seeks, first, under Article 263 TFEU, in essence, the annulment, in so far as they concern him, of Decision No 90/2021 of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 8 [confidential] rejecting his candidacy and that of another candidate, A, for the positions of European Delegated Prosecutors in [confidential], Decision No 15/2022 of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 23 [confidential] rejecting his and A’s complaint against the contested decision of 8 [confidential] and Decision No 21/2022 of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office of 30 [confidential] appointing two European Delegated Prosecutors of [confidential] and, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU, compensation for the damage he allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders PU to pay his own costs as well as those incurred by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.






(1)  
            OJ C 380, 3.10.2022.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2611/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11331 – ACES / PREZERO / ENAGAS RENOVABLE / PREZERO BIOMETANO)
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: biogas, circular economy, economic concentration, joint venture, merger control, provision of services, reduction of gas emissions, waste, waste management, water management








C_202402210EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/2210


15.3.2024






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.11331 – ACES / PREZERO / ENAGAS RENOVABLE / PREZERO BIOMETANO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/2210)

On 28 February 2024, 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 32024M11331. 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/2024/2210/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11474 – HPS / BERLIN BRANDS GROUP) – Candidate case for simplified procedure
Date: 2024-02-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, holding company, household electrical appliance, investment company, merger control








C_202401806EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/1806


28.2.2024






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.11474 – HPS / BERLIN BRANDS GROUP)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(C/2024/1806)


1.   
On 19 February 2024, 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:






—


HPS Investment Partners, LLC (United States of America, ‘HPS’);










—


Berlin Brands Group Holding GmbH (Germany, ‘BBG’).




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


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






—


HPS a global investment firm.










—


BBG designs and develops consumer goods, in particular electrical appliances and consumer electronics and sells these products via its own online stores, third-party operated marketplaces, and other sales channels.






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 treatment for certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (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.11474 – HPS / BERLIN BRANDS GROUP
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 160, 5.5.2023, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/1806/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)