do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-540/17 and C-541/17: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Adel Hamed (C-540/17), Amar Omar (C-541/17) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Area of freedom, security and justice — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Directive 2013/32/EU — Article 33(2)(a) — Rejection by the authorities of a Member State of an application for asylum as being inadmissible because of the prior granting of refugee status in another Member State — Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment — Living conditions of those granted refugee status in that other Member State)
Date: 2019-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, aid to refugees, area of freedom, security and justice, asylum seeker, cruel and degrading treatment, living conditions, refugee, right of asylum








C_2020045EN.01000901.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/9






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Adel Hamed (C-540/17), Amar Omar (C-541/17)
(Joined Cases C-540/17 and C-541/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Area of freedom, security and justice - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 33(2)(a) - Rejection by the authorities of a Member State of an application for asylum as being inadmissible because of the prior granting of refugee status in another Member State - Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Substantial risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment - Living conditions of those granted refugee status in that other Member State)
(2020/C 45/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Defendant: Adel Hamed (C-540/17), Amar Omar (C-541/17)

Operative part of the order

Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from exercising the option under that provision to reject an application for international protection as being inadmissible on the ground that the applicant has already been granted refugee status by another Member State where the living conditions which the applicant could be expected to encounter as a refugee in that other Member State would expose him or her to a serious risk of suffering inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9413 — Lactalis/Nuova Castelli) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 385/08
Date: 2019-11-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cheese factory, dairy industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2019385EN.01000901.xml










13.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9413 — Lactalis/Nuova Castelli)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 385/08)

1.   
On 4 November 2019, 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:






—


Gruppo Lactalis Italia S.r.l. (Italy), belonging to the Lactalis Group (together ‘Lactalis’, France),










—


Nuova Castelli S.p.A. (‘Nuova Castelli’, Italy), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nuova Castelli Group S.p.A (France), in turn controlled by Charterhouse Capital Partners (United Kingdom).




Lactalis acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Nuova Castelli. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Lactalis: producing and supplying cheese such as mozzarella, mascarpone and ricotta, as well as drinking milk, butter, fresh products, cream and industrial dairy products (milk powder, whey, etc.),










—


for Nuova Castelli: producing and selling various Italian cheeses, mostly hard cheeses and soft cheeses (mozzarella, parmesan, grana padano, pecorino, ricotta, etc.) and has trading activity in relation essentially to mascarpone, feta and butter.






3.   

On 9 September 2019, the Commission received notification of the same proposed concentration. However, on 3 October 2019 Lactalis and Nuova Castelli decided to withdraw such notification.



4.   

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.



5.   
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.9413 — Lactalis/Nuova Castelli
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
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 C-528/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2019 — Outsource Professional Services Ltd v Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absolute grounds for invalidity — Article 52(1)(b) — Bad faith at the time that an application for a trade mark is filed)
Date: 2019-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, India, advertising, business management, education, financial services, insurance, outsourcing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020010EN.01001602.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/16






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 November 2019 — Outsource Professional Services Ltd v Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-528/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute grounds for invalidity - Article 52(1)(b) - Bad faith at the time that an application for a trade mark is filed)
(2020/C 10/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Outsource Professional Services Ltd (represented by: A. Kempter, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd (represented by: S.O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche, B. Köhn-Gerdes and J. Schumacher, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Botis and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Outsource Professional Services Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Flatworld Solutions Pvt Ltd in relation to the appeal proceedings;










3.


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






(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Efta court Judgment of the Court of 13 November 2019 in Case E-2/19
Date: 2019-11-13
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Liechtenstein, family, family migration, interpretation of the law, residence permit








C_2020040EN.01003301.xml










6.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 40/33






EFTA COURT JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 13 November 2019
in Case E-2/19
D and E

(Free movement of persons – Sectoral adaptations for Liechtenstein – Right of residence – Derived right of residence for family members – Directive 2004/38/EC)

(2020/C 40/04)
In Case E-2/19, D and E – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Administrative Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein (Verwaltungsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, as adapted to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Bernd Hammermann and Ola Mestad (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 13 November 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:
The sectoral adaptations to Annexes V and VIII to the EEA Agreement, in particular Point III thereof, do not deprive the family member of an EEA national, who has a valid residence permit and is residing in Liechtenstein, of the right to accompany or join the EEA national in Liechtenstein on the basis of Article 7(1)(d) of Directive 2004/38/EC, even though the residence permit that the EEA national in Liechtenstein holds was not granted on the basis of the system provided for in the sectoral adaptations.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 12 November 20192019/C 385/07
Date: 2019-11-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019385EN.01000801.xml










13.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 385/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 November 2019
(2019/C 385/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1015 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,24 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4723 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85820 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7003 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0963 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0798 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,499 




HUF


Hungarian forint


334,39 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2747 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7625 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3590 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6087 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4588 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6202 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7382 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4994 




KRW


South Korean won


1 281,79 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3334 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7187 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4417 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 499,48 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5630 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,959 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,4859 




THB


Thai baht


33,416 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5868 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,0924 




INR


Indian rupee


78,9690 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-829/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 13 November 2019 — XY v KLM Cityhopper BV
Date: 2019-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2020087EN.01000202.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/2






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 13 November 2019 — XY v KLM Cityhopper BV
(Case C-829/19)
(2020/C 87/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XY

Defendant: KLM Cityhopper BV
The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 17 January 2020.
Case C-827/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 13 November 2019 — D.A.T.A and Others v Ryanair D.A.C.
Date: 2019-11-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller, working conditions








C_2020045EN.01002501.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra (Spain) lodged on 13 November 2019 — D.A.T.A and Others v Ryanair D.A.C.
(Case C-827/19)
(2020/C 45/22)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: D.A.T.A., L.F.A., A.M.A.G., L.F.A., J.G.C., S.C.C., A.C.V., A.A.G., A.C.A., L.C.A., N.P.B., P.C.A.

Defendant: Ryanair D.A.C.

Questions referred







1


Can the exercise of the right to strike by airline staff be regarded as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/20[0]4 (1)where the strike is called by a trade union in pursuit of improvements to employment conditions and is not triggered by a prior decision of the employer but by the employees’ demands, or is it a circumstance inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity?










2


In circumstances such as those at issue in these proceedings, even where the carrier has been given the advance notice of the strike required by law, is the carrier required to adopt some legally permissible measure, such as offering flights with other airlines unaffected by the strike, for example?










3


For the purposes of considering whether a strike by the airline’s cabin staff is an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/20[0]4, is the way in which the strike is called off relevant, particularly where it is called off as the result of reciprocal concessions made by the parties to the dispute?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-790/19: Action brought on 13 November 2019 – Novolipetsk Steel v Commission
Date: 2019-11-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, countervailing charge, import (EU), iron and steel product, originating product, third country








C_2020010EN.01004901.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/49






Action brought on 13 November 2019 – Novolipetsk Steel v Commission
(Case T-790/19)
(2020/C 10/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Novolipetsk Steel PAO (Lipetsk, Russia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:






—


annul Article 1 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 (1), as far as it applies to the applicant;










—


maintain the effects of the contested Regulation until the defendant adopts the measures needed to comply with the judgment of the General Court, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in relation to these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant lacked competence and acted in breach of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/477 (‘Combined Effect Regulation’) (2) and Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 (‘Basic AD Regulation’) (3), by imposing varying levels of anti-dumping duties, depending on whether or not quotas under the safeguard measures are exhausted.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and acted in breach of Article 1(1) of the Combined Effect Regulation and Article 9(5) of the Basic AD Regulation by only amending the anti-dumping measures once the quotas under the safeguard measures are exhausted.






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 of 2 September 2019 amending certain Regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on certain steel products subject to safeguard measures, OJ L 227, 3.9.2019, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/477 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on measures that the Union may take in relation to the combined effect of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with safeguard measures, OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p. 11.

(3)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (codification), OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.