do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-522/18: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, acting in its own name and as agent of Coop. sociale il Melograno v Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 57(4)(c) and (g) — Award of public service contracts — Optional grounds for exclusion — Grave professional misconduct — Calling into question the economic operator’s integrity — Prior contract — Performance — Breaches — Termination — Judicial remedy — Contracting authority’s assessment of the contractual breach — Preclusion until the end of the judicial proceedings)
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, public procurement, services contract, termination of a contract








C_2020045EN.01001002.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/10






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, acting in its own name and as agent of Coop. sociale il Melograno v Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto
(Case C-522/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 57(4)(c) and (g) - Award of public service contracts - Optional grounds for exclusion - Grave professional misconduct - Calling into question the economic operator’s integrity - Prior contract - Performance - Breaches - Termination - Judicial remedy - Contracting authority’s assessment of the contractual breach - Preclusion until the end of the judicial proceedings)
(2020/C 45/06)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Indaco Service Soc. coop. sociale, acting in its own name and as agent of Coop. sociale il Melograno

Defendant: Ufficio Territoriale del Governo Taranto

Intervener: Cometa Società Cooperativa Sociale

Operative part of the order

Article 57(4)(c) and (g) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as precluding rules of national law pursuant to which an action before the courts against a decision to terminate a public contract, taken by a contracting authority on account of ‘grave professional misconduct’ arising during performance of the contract, prevents the contracting authority which issues a new call for tenders from excluding an operator, at the stage of selecting tenderers, on the basis of an assessment of that operator’s reliability.


(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9599 — Cobepa/Socotec) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 401/01
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: approval, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, testing








C_2019401EN.01000101.xml










27.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 401/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9599 — Cobepa/Socotec)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 401/01)
On 20 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 32019M9599. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9531 — Assicurazioni Generali/Seguradoras Unidas/AdvanceCare) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 23/03
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: claim, economic concentration, insurance company, merger control








C_2020023EN.01000301.xml










23.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 23/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9531 — Assicurazioni Generali/Seguradoras Unidas/AdvanceCare)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 23/03)
On 20 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 32019M9531. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-800/19: Action brought on 20 November 2019 – Austria Tabak v EUIPO – Mignot & De Block (AIR)
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2020045EN.01007901.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/79






Action brought on 20 November 2019 – Austria Tabak v EUIPO – Mignot & De Block (AIR)
(Case T-800/19)
(2020/C 45/64)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Austria Tabak GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mignot & De Block BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark AIR – European Union trade mark No 2 309 110

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 in Case R 1665/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the present proceedings, including the costs deriving from the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Fourth Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-843/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 20 November 2019 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) v BT
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: early retirement, pension scheme, sexual discrimination, social security legislation








C_2020054EN.01003201.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 20 November 2019 — Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) v BT
(Case C-843/19)
(2020/C 54/34)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS)

Respondent: BT

Question referred

Does EU law preclude a provision of national law such as Article 208(1)(c) of the 2015 Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Law on Social Security), which stipulates that, in order for anyone enrolled in the General Scheme to be able to take voluntary early retirement, the pension payable, calculated in the standard way without any minimum pension supplement, must be at least as much as the minimum pension, inasmuch as it indirectly discriminates against women enrolled in the General Scheme, since it affects a far greater number of women than men?
Case T-695/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2019 — Werner v EUIPO — Merck (fLORAMED) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark fLORAMED — Earlier EU word mark MEDIFLOR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, animal product, dietary product, foodstuff, milk product, pharmaceutical product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020019EN.01004701.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/47






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2019 — Werner v EUIPO — Merck (fLORAMED)
(Case T-695/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark fLORAMED - Earlier EU word mark MEDIFLOR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 19/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stefan Werner (Baldham, Germany) (represented by: T Büttner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: U. Pfleghar, M. Best, M. Giannakoulis and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 September 2018 (Case R 197/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Merck and Mr Werner.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



dismisses the action;











2.



orders Mr Stefan Werner to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case C-841/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 41 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 November 2019 — JL v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal pay, equal treatment, gender equality, part-time employment, wage determination








C_2020045EN.01002502.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social n.o 41 de Madrid (Spain) lodged on 20 November 2019 — JL v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
(Case C-841/19)
(2020/C 45/23)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social n.o 41 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: JL

Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)

Question referred

The question referred is whether Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) and Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/54/EC (2)of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 should be interpreted as precluding a legislative provision of a Member State ¼ such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, as regards the amount which FOGASA (3) is liable to pay a part-time worker, the worker’s base wages, which are reduced due to the part-time nature of the employment, are reduced again when calculating FOGASA’s liability under Article 33 of the Workers’ Statute, because the part-time factor is applied for a second time, as compared with a comparable full-time worker, in so far as that provision disadvantages female workers as compared with male workers.


(1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979, L 6, p. 24).

(2)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).

(3)  Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Wages Guarantee Fund).
Case T-801/19: Application lodged on 20 November 2019 — DTE Systems v EUIPO — Speed-Buster (PedalBox +)
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, electronic component, electronic equipment, engine, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2020027EN.01006301.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/63






Application lodged on 20 November 2019 — DTE Systems v EUIPO — Speed-Buster (PedalBox +)
(Case T-801/19)
(2020/C 27/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties to the proceedings


Applicant: DTE Systems GmbH (Recklinghausen, Germany) (represented by: U. Vietmeyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Speed-Buster GmbH & Co. KG (Sinzig, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark PedalBox + — EU trade mark No 16 637 266

Proceedings before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 1934/2018-1

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decisions of the defendant’s Cancellation Division of 1 August 2018, No 16 223 C (invalidity) and of the defendant’s First Board of Appeal of 5 September 2019 in Case R 1934/2018-1;










—


Maintain EU trade mark No 16 637 266 on the register in its entirety, as registered and certified by the defendant;










—


In the alternative, in the event that the General Court considers that other findings of fact are necessary, order the defendant to adopt a new decision on the need to preserve the availability of the term ‘PedalBox +’, without taking into account product designations of the companies SPEED-BUSTER GmbH & Co. KG., Mosaikweg 18, 53489 Sinzig, Germany, or CPA Performance GmbH, Jurastrasse 1, 73119 Zell unter Aichelberg, Germany.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 19 November 20192019/C 393/02
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019393EN.01000201.xml










20.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 393/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 November 2019
(2019/C 393/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1077 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,46 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4721 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85573 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6475 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0979 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0853 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,565 




HUF


Hungarian forint


334,93 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2877 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7763 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3310 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6234 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4633 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6709 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7259 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5070 




KRW


South Korean won


1 292,01 




ZAR


South African rand


16,3211 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7829 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4429 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 607,49 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6053 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,371 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,6272 




THB


Thai baht


33,458 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6465 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3370 




INR


Indian rupee


79,3975 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-737/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic)
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, eligibility criteria








C_2020027EN.01000901.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/9






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission
(Case C-737/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic)
(2020/C 27/10)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. Saraiva de Almeida, P. Barros da Costa and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Case C-400/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Infohos v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 13A(1)(f) — Exemptions — Supply of services by independent groups of persons — Services supplied to members and non-members)
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, association, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2020027EN.01000502.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Infohos v Belgische Staat
(Case C-400/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 13A(1)(f) - Exemptions - Supply of services by independent groups of persons - Services supplied to members and non-members)
(2020/C 27/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Infohos

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of the of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes ‒ Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes exemption from value added tax (VAT) subject to the condition that independent groups of persons supply services exclusively to their members, which has the effect that groups which also supply services to non-members are fully subject to VAT, including for services which they supply to their members.


(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Case T-101/19: Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2019 — Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark imot.bg — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet access provider, banking, broadcasting, financial services, insurance, registered trade mark, sponsorship, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2020010EN.01003301.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/33






Judgment of the General Court of 20 November 2019 — Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)
(Case T-101/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark imot.bg - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 10/44)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: Rezon OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2018 (Case R 999/2018-2) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign imot.bg as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Rezon OOD to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Case C-706/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Right to family reunification — Directive 2003/86/EC — Article 5(4) — Decision concerning the application for family reunification — Consequences of failure to comply with the time limit for taking a decision — Automatic issue of a residence permit)
Date: 2019-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, area of freedom, security and justice, family migration, residence permit








C_2020027EN.01000801.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/8






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen — Belgium) — X v Belgische Staat
(Case C-706/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Right to family reunification - Directive 2003/86/EC - Article 5(4) - Decision concerning the application for family reunification - Consequences of failure to comply with the time limit for taking a decision - Automatic issue of a residence permit)
(2020/C 27/09)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: X

Defendant: Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on family reunification must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the absence of a decision being adopted within six months of the date on which the application for family reunification was lodged, the competent national authorities must automatically issue a residence permit to the applicant, without necessarily having to establish in advance that the latter actually meets the requirements for residence in the host Member State in accordance with EU law.


(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.