do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-833/19 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2019 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 September 2019 in Case T-308/18 Hamas v Council
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, terrorism, trade restriction








C_2020010EN.01002601.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/26






Appeal brought on 14 November 2019 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 September 2019 in Case T-308/18 Hamas v Council
(Case C-833/19 P)
(2020/C 10/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by B. Driessen and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Hamas

Form of order sought

The Council submits that the Court of Justice should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-308/19;










—


give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of this appeal; and










—


order the applicant in Case T-308/18 to pay the costs incurred by the Council in the proceedings at first instance and in the context of the present appeal.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In the first place, the Council takes the view that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of the eighth plea for annulment, alleging ‘failure to authenticate the statement of reasons’, by finding that the statement of reasons relating to the contested measures ought to have been signed.
In the second place, the Council submits that the General Court erred in not finding that the decisions of the American authorities constituted a sufficient basis for including Hamas in the list annexed to the contested measures.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9588 — Shell Energy Retails/Hudson Energy Supply) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 393/01
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, gas supply, merger control








C_2019393EN.01000101.xml










20.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9588 — Shell Energy Retails/Hudson Energy Supply)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 393/01)
On 14 November 2019, 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 website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). 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 32019M9588. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-147/19: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Flovax v EUIPO — Dagniaux and Gervais Danone (GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923) (EU trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Application for European Union figurative mark GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923 — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, pastry-making, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020019EN.01005002.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/50






Order of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Flovax v EUIPO — Dagniaux and Gervais Danone (GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923)
(Case T-147/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Application for European Union figurative mark GLACIER DAGNIAUX DEPUIS 1923 - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2020/C 19/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Flovax Sàrl (Doncols, Luxembourg) (represented by: C.-S. Marchiani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Pétrequin and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Dagniaux (Roubaix, France)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Compagnie Gervais Danone (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Havard Duclos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2018 (Joined Cases R 2210/2016-1 and R 2211/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Compagnie Gervais Danone and, on the other hand, Flovax and Dagniaux.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.











2.



The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Case T-789/19: Action brought on 14 November 2019 — Moerenhout and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Treaty on European Union, Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, common commercial policy, international law, petition








C_2020045EN.01007601.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/76






Action brought on 14 November 2019 — Moerenhout and Others v Commission
(Case T-789/19)
(2020/C 45/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Tom Moerenhout (Humbeek, Belgium) and six other applicants (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action against Commission Decision C(2019) 6390 final of 4 September 2019 refusing to register the proposed European citizens’ initiative entitled ‘Ensuring Common Commercial Policy conformity with EU Treaties and compliance with international law’ (OJ 2019 L 241, p. 12), the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 211/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on the citizens’ initiative (OJ 2011 L 65, p. 1) in so far as the Commission distorted the proposed citizens’ initiative;










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the contested decision;










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission took the view that the action envisaged by the proposed citizens’ initiative could be adopted only on the basis of Article 215 TFEU, whereas that action clearly fell within the common commercial policy;










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 211/2011 in so far as the Commission ignored other legal bases to which the ECI proposal clearly relates, namely Article 43(2) TFEU and Article 114 TFEU.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9611 — Pavilion Energy/Iberdrola Group (European LNG Asset Portfolio)) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 386/11
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas, merger control, natural gas, storage of hydrocarbons, wholesale trade








C_2019386EN.01003201.xml










14.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 386/32






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9611 — Pavilion Energy/Iberdrola Group (European LNG Asset Portfolio))
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 386/11)

1.   
On 5 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:






—


Pavilion Energy Pte. Ltd. (Singapore), controlled by Temasek Holdings Private Limited (Singapore),










—


European LNG Asset Portfolio (Spain), belonging to the Iberdrola group (‘Iberdrola’, Spain).




Pavilion Energy acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of part(s) of Iberdrola. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Pavilion Energy is a Singapore-based integrated global LNG player active in the LNG trading as well as storage, processing and shipping. It is wholly-owned by Temasek, an investment company,










—


European LNG Asset Portfolio comprises a range of LNG assets including a portfolio of long-term LNG sale and procurement contracts, as well as various ancillary contracts over regasification capacity in the UK and Spain, pipeline capacity at the Spanish-French border as well as the time-charter of a newly built MEGI LNG vessel.






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 the 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.9611 — Pavilion Energy/Iberdrola Group (European LNG Asset Portfolio)
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Singapore, free-trade agreement, trade agreement (EU)








L_2019293EN.01000101.xml










14.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 293/1







Notice concerning the date of entry into force of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore

The Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore (1), signed in Brussels on 19 October 2018, will enter into force on 21 November 2019.


(1)  
            OJ L 294, 14.11.2019, p. 1.
Case C-831/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2019 — Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, guarantee, right to justice, unfair terms of contract








C_2020036EN.01001801.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 14 November 2019 — Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA and Others v YX, ZW
(Case C-831/19)
(2020/C 36/22)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Milano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Banco di Desio e della Brianza SpA, Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Carugate e Inzago SC, Intesa Sanpaolo SpA, Banca Popolare di Sondrio SCpA, Cerved Credit Management SpA

Defendants: YX, ZW

Questions referred







1.


Under what conditions, if any, do the combined provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC (1) and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a national rule, such as that under consideration, which prevents the court hearing enforcement proceedings from carrying out a review of the content of an enforceable judicial instrument that has acquired the force of res judicata, when the consumer, having become aware of his status (an awareness not previously possible under the law as applied at the relevant time), requests such a review?










2.


Under what conditions, if any, do the combined provisions of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a legal system, such as the national system under consideration, which, in the light of an implicit decision that a contractual term is fair, a decision having acquired the force of res judicata, prevents the court hearing enforcement proceedings, called upon to rule on the consumer’s objection to the enforcement, from finding the term to be unfair? Moreover, can such a court be so precluded where — under the law as it was applied at the time that decision acquired the force of res judicata — it was not possible to consider whether the term was unfair because the guarantor could not be classified as a consumer?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case T- 276/13 RENV: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council (Dumping — Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Repeal of the contested act — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United States, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product








C_2020019EN.01004802.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/48






Order of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association v Council
(Case T- 276/13 RENV) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of bioethanol originating in the United States - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Repeal of the contested act - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
(2020/C 19/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Growth Energy (Washington, DC, United States) and Renewable Fuels Association (Washington) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and M. Peristeraki, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, acting as Agent, and by N. Tuominen, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and M. França, acting as Agents), ePURE, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol (represented by: O. Prost and A. Massot, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 157/2013 of 18 February 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bioethanol originating in the United States of America (OJ 2013 L 49, p. 10), in so far as it concerns the applicants and their members

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.











2.



Growth Energy and Renewable Fuels Association, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and ePure, de Europese Producenten Unie van Hernieuwbare Ethanol shall bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.
Case C-520/19: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Armostav Místek s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the question referred — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, case-law (EU), equality before the law, liability, misuse of a right, national law, ownership, tax authorities, tax offence, tax relief








C_2020137EN.01002602.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/26






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — Armostav Místek s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-520/19) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and lack of grounds justifying the need for an answer to the question referred - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 137/35)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Armostav Místek s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Ostrava Regional Court Czech Republic), by decision of 18 June 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 328 of 30.9.2019.
Case C-484/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique et de la danse (Spedidam), PG, GF v Institut national de l’audiovisuel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Exclusive rights of performers — Article 2(b) — Reproduction right — Article 3(2)(a) — Making available to the public — Authorisation — Presumption — National scheme exempting a public institution responsible for the conservation and promotion of the national audiovisual heritage from the requirement to obtain the performer’s written consent for the exploitation of archives containing fixations of that performer’s performances)
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: archives, artistic profession, audiovisual programme, copyright, cultural heritage, heritage protection, public institution, reprography








C_2020010EN.01001601.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/16






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique et de la danse (Spedidam), PG, GF v Institut national de l’audiovisuel
(Case C-484/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Exclusive rights of performers - Article 2(b) - Reproduction right - Article 3(2)(a) - Making available to the public - Authorisation - Presumption - National scheme exempting a public institution responsible for the conservation and promotion of the national audiovisual heritage from the requirement to obtain the performer’s written consent for the exploitation of archives containing fixations of that performer’s performances)
(2020/C 10/18)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique et de la danse (Spedidam), PG, GF

Defendant: Institut national de l’audiovisuel

Interveners: Syndicat indépendant des artistes-interprètes (SIA-UNSA), Syndicat français des artistes-interprètes (CGT)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) and Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which establishes, as regards the exploitation of audiovisual archives by a body set up for that purpose, a rebuttable presumption that the performer has authorised the fixation and exploitation of his performances, where that performer is involved in the recording of an audiovisual work so that it may be broadcast.


(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
Case T-669/18: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-11-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020010EN.01003201.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/32






Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2019 — Neoperl v EUIPO (Representation of four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern)
(Case T-669/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 10/43)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Neoperl AG (Reinach, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza and G. Schultz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2018 (Case R 2059/2017-5), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing four filled-in holes in a regular hole pattern as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Neoperl AG to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.