do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-149/19: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Jumbo Africa (Representation of a human figure on an escutcheon) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing the shape of a human figure on an escutcheon — EU figurative mark representing the shape of a human figure — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Power to alter decisions)
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereals, foodstuff, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020010EN.01003302.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/33






Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Société des produits Nestlé v EUIPO — Jumbo Africa (Representation of a human figure on an escutcheon)
(Case T-149/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing the shape of a human figure on an escutcheon - EU figurative mark representing the shape of a human figure - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Power to alter decisions)
(2020/C 10/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger Lenz, A. Lambrecht and C. Elkemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Jumbo Africa, SL (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 November 2018 (Case R 876/2018-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Jumbo Africa and Société des produits Nestlé.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 November 2018 (Case R 876/2018-2);











2.



Dismisses the appeal brought before EUIPO by Jumbo Africa, SL;











3.



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Société des produits Nestlé SA for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court;











4.



Orders Jumbo Africa to pay the cost necessarily incurred by Société des produits Nestlé for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;











5.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder.







(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Shedding light on the European Citizens’ Initiative.
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Secretariat-General
Subjects: EU policy, European citizenship, citizens' Europe, civil society, participatory democracy, representative democracy

M Y T H   1 

If an initiative does not  

result in EU legislation, 

there is no point

SHEDDING LIGHT 

on the European Citizens’ Initiative

M Y T H   2

Proposed initiatives have 

a very high refusal rate at 

registration level

M Y T H   3

The European Commission  

doesn’t care about  

initiatives

M Y T H   4

The follow-up on  

successful initiatives is  

disappointing

M Y T H   5

Citizens find the tool 

difficult to use

M Y T H   6

Nobody knows 

about the tool 

anyway

R E A L I T Y   1 
An initiative allows you to build 
networks and raise the 
awareness of both citizens and 
policy-makers. It can also result  
in other meaningful 
follow-up actions.

R E A L I T Y   2 
An initiative is refused only 
if it manifestly 
falls outside the 
Commission’s powers 
or is contrary to EU values. More 
than 90% of proposed initiatives 
have been registered since 2015!

#EUTakeTheInitiative

For more information on the European Citizens’ Initiative,  
including the list of initiatives currently open for support, go to: 
europa.eu/citizens-initiative

R E A L I T Y   4 

The Right 2 Water initiative 
led to a revision of the directive on 
drinking water, obliging Member 
States to improve access to water 
and ensure access for vulnerable and 
marginalised groups.

R E A L I T Y   3 

When an initiative has gathered 

the support of 1 million citizens, the 
Commission meets with 
the organisers and adopts 
a formal response, after a public 
debate is held in the EU 
Parliament.

R E A L I T Y   5 

Following a proposal from the Commission, 

the European Parliament and the Council 

have adopted new rules that will make  

the tool  easier to use. 

R E A L I T Y   6 
More than  9 million citizens 
in support of initiatives is already a 
significant achievement.  
Everybody has a role to play -  
so spread the word!

© European Union, [2019] Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

 ISBN 978-92-76-12231-9 – doi:10.2792/25859 – KA-04-19-659-EN-N
Case T-788/19: Action brought on 14 November 2019 – Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO – Sakkari (Sakkattack)
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2020010EN.01004802.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/48






Action brought on 14 November 2019 – Body Attack Sports Nutrition v EUIPO – Sakkari (Sakkattack)
(Case T-788/19)
(2020/C 10/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Body Attack Sports Nutrition GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maria Sakkari (Nicosia, Cyprus)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Sakkattack in the colours black, red, yellow and white – Application for registration No 16 603 318

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 August 2019 in Case R 2562/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 37(1) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of the rule of equal treatment and sound administration;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council
Case C-585/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by the Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Alteration of an authorised aid scheme — Article 108(3) TFEU — Notification requirement — Standstill obligation subject to approval from the European Commission — Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Exemption — Article 58(1) — Temporal scope of the regulation — Article 44(3) — Scope — National legislation laying down a formula for calculating a partial rebate of energy taxes)
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid recipient, control of State aid, environmental tax, tax rebate








C_2020010EN.01000201.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/2






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Proceedings brought by the Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr
(Case C-585/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Alteration of an authorised aid scheme - Article 108(3) TFEU - Notification requirement - Standstill obligation subject to approval from the European Commission - Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Exemption - Article 58(1) - Temporal scope of the regulation - Article 44(3) - Scope - National legislation laying down a formula for calculating a partial rebate of energy taxes)
(2020/C 10/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Finanzamt Linz, Finanzamt Kirchdorf Perg Steyr

Intervener: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 108(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which alters an aid scheme by restricting those eligible for such aid is, in principle, subject to the notification requirement laid down in that article.










2.


Article 58(1) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 [TFEU] must be interpreted as meaning that aid granted before the entry into force of that regulation, on the basis of an aid scheme such as the one at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, may be exempted, under that regulation, from the notification requirement laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU.










3.


Article 44(3) of Regulation No 651/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that an aid scheme, such as the one at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, in which the amount of an energy tax rebate is specifically fixed in a calculation formula provided for by the national legislation establishing that scheme, complies with that provision.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Case C-599/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 November 2019 — Silec Cable, General Cable Corp. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for underground and submarine power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Proof of the infringement — Presumption of innocence — Distortion of the evidence — Public distancing — Subjective perception of other cartel participants — Infringement committed by several undertakings constituting a single economic entity — Gravity of the infringement committed by one of these undertakings — Determination — ‘Fringe player’ or ‘moderate player’ in the cartel — Determination — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cable distribution, cartel, electric cable, equal treatment, infringement of EU law, market-sharing agreement, proof, restriction on competition, rights of the defence








C_2020010EN.01001801.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/18






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 November 2019 — Silec Cable, General Cable Corp. v European Commission
(Case C-599/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for underground and submarine power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Proof of the infringement - Presumption of innocence - Distortion of the evidence - Public distancing - Subjective perception of other cartel participants - Infringement committed by several undertakings constituting a single economic entity - Gravity of the infringement committed by one of these undertakings - Determination - ‘Fringe player’ or ‘moderate player’ in the cartel - Determination - Principle of equal treatment)
(2020/C 10/21)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Silec Cable, General Cable Corp. (represented by: I. Sinan, Barrister, and C. Renner, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet, S. Baches Opi and F. Castilla Contreras, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Silec Cable SAS and General Cable Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Joint statement of the European Parliament and of the Council2019/C 386/01
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: Frontex, equal treatment, external border of the EU, professional qualifications, recruitment, remuneration of work, requisitioning of workers, staff regulations, vocational training








C_2019386EN.01000101.xml










14.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/1






JOINT STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
(2019/C 386/01)
The European Border and Coast Guard Agency is expected to face challenging circumstances in the coming years to fulfil exceptional needs for recruiting, training and retaining qualified staff from the broadest possible geographical basis. In view of the Agency’s mandate and the important number of its staff, it is essential to explore mechanisms which would allow to ensure the attractiveness of the Agency as an employer by adapting the remunerations of the staff of the Agency in Warsaw, in accordance with the applicable Union law.
The European Parliament and the Council therefore call upon the Commission to assess the basis and modalities for any such appropriate mechanism, in particular when presenting the proposals for the revision of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Union, laid down in Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 (1). Any such mechanism shall be proportionate to the importance of the objectives pursued and not give rise to unequal treatment among staff of the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies if such Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies are confronted with a similar situation.


(1)  OJ L 56, 4.3.1968, p. 1.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 13 November 20192019/C 386/03
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019386EN.01000501.xml










14.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

13 November 2019
(2019/C 386/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1006 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,79 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4725 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85760 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7353 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0894 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1390 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,591 




HUF


Hungarian forint


334,75 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2874 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7633 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3316 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6127 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4592 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6204 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7228 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5000 




KRW


South Korean won


1 288,15 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4441 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7281 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4415 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 522,75 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5713 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,025 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,8149 




THB


Thai baht


33,277 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6017 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3723 




INR


Indian rupee


79,3190 






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