do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-817/19: Action brought on 27 November 2019 – Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO – OmniVision (Hydrovision)
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020027EN.01006801.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/68






Action brought on 27 November 2019 – Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO – OmniVision (Hydrovision)
(Case T-817/19)
(2020/C 27/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: OmniVision GmbH (Puchheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Hydrovision – Application for registration No 16 286 841

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 in Case R 2371/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the EUIPO for reconsideration; or










—


alter the contested decision;










—


award the costs in the Applicant’s favor.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of legal certainty.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9540 — Permira/Cambrex) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 409/03
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: commercial contract, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2019409EN.01004901.xml










5.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/49






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9540 — Permira/Cambrex)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 409/03)
On 27 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 32019M9540. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-566/19: Order of the General Court of 27 November 2019 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Baltic Sea, Denmark, EU financing, Germany, State aid, control of State aid, project of common interest, rail transport, tunnel








C_2020036EN.01003902.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/39






Order of the General Court of 27 November 2019 — Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-566/19) (1)

(2020/C 36/48)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
Case T-31/18: Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2019 –Izuzquiza and Semsrott v Frontex (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a naval operation carried out by Frontex in the central Mediterranean in 2017 — Vessels deployed — Refusal of access — Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of public security)
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Mediterranean Sea, access to EU information, flag, public safety, vessel








C_2020019EN.01004401.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/44






Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2019 –Izuzquiza and Semsrott v Frontex
(Case T-31/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a naval operation carried out by Frontex in the central Mediterranean in 2017 - Vessels deployed - Refusal of access - Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of public security)
(2020/C 19/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Luisa Izuzquiza (Madrid, Spain) and Arne Semsrott (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Hilbrans, R. Callsen, lawyers, and J. Pobjoy, Barrister)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and T. Knäbe, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur and J. Currall, lawyers)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Frontex Decision CGO/LAU/18911c/2017 of 10 November 2017 refusing access to documents containing information on the name, flag and type of each vessel deployed by Frontex in the central Mediterranean under Joint Operation Triton between 1 June and 30 August 2017.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Ms Luisa Izuzquiza and Mr Arne Semsrott to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Case C-865/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Rennes (France) lodged on 27 November 2019 — Caisse de Crédit Mutuel Le Mans Pontlieue v OG
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank charges, consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing








C_2020054EN.01003401.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Rennes (France) lodged on 27 November 2019 — Caisse de Crédit Mutuel Le Mans Pontlieue v OG
(Case C-865/19)
(2020/C 54/37)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’instance de Rennes

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Caisse de Crédit Mutuel Le Mans Pontlieue

Defendant: OG

Question referred

Where the annual percentage rate of charge for credit granted to a consumer is 5.364511%, does the rule laid down in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998, (1) 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008 (2) and 2014/17/EU of 4 February 2014, (3) according to which, in the [English] version, ‘The result of the calculation shall be expressed with an accuracy of at least one decimal place. If the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at this particular decimal place shall be increased by one’, allow it to be concluded that an agreement stating that the annual percentage rate of charge is 5.363% is accurate?


(1)  Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17).

(2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).

(3)  Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 34).
Case T-818/19: Action brought on 27 November 2019 – Dvectis CZ v EUIPO – Yado (Support pillows)
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, medical device








C_2020027EN.01006901.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/69






Action brought on 27 November 2019 – Dvectis CZ v EUIPO – Yado (Support pillows)
(Case T-818/19)
(2020/C 27/69)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dvectis CZ s.r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Svojanovská, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yado s.r.o. (Handlová, Slovakia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Registered Community design No 3222 504-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2019 in Case R 513/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the defendant bears the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.




If the Court does not agree with the above-stated proposal, the applicant requests to:






—


change the contested decision in a way that the appeal of the applicant of 21 March 2018 is fully upheld and the design at issue remains valid;










—


order that the defendant bears the applicant’s costs in these proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of the essential procedural requirements.
Case C-866/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 27 November 2019 — SC v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie Wydział Realizacji Umów Międzynarodowych
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: social security legislation, social-security benefit, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation








C_2020061EN.01001901.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 27 November 2019 — SC v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie Wydział Realizacji Umów Międzynarodowych
(Case C-866/19)
(2020/C 61/23)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie Wydział Realizacji Umów Międzynarodowych

Question referred

Should Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/[20]04 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1) be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution:






(a)


takes into account, in accordance with national law, non-contribution periods not exceeding one third of the aggregated contribution periods completed under national law and under the legislations of the other Member States both for the purpose of determining the theoretical amount (point (i)) and the actual amount (point (ii)) of the benefit; or










(b)


takes into account, in accordance with national law, non-contribution periods not exceeding one third of the aggregated contribution periods completed under national law and under the legislations of the other Member States only for the purpose of determining the theoretical amount (point (i)) but not for the purpose of establishing the actual amount (point (ii)) of the benefit; or










(c)


does not take into account, either for the purpose of determining the theoretical amount (point (i)) or the actual amount (point (ii)) of the benefit, periods of insurance in another Member State when calculating the limit on non-contribution periods under national law?






(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.
Corrigendum to Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9621 — Suez/Itochu/SFC/EDCO) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Official Journal of the European Union C 395 of 22 November 2019)2019/C 401/07
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hazardous waste, investment company, merger control, waste management, wastewater, water management








C_2019401EN.01001301.xml










27.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 401/13






Corrigendum to Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9621 — Suez/Itochu/SFC/EDCO) Candidate case for simplified procedure

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 395 of 22 November 2019
)

(2019/C 401/07)
On page 9, in point 1, third paragraph:
for:

‘Suez, Itochu and SFC acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of EDCO.’,

read:

‘Suez, Itochu and SFC acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of EDCO.’.
Case C-868/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2019 — M-GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, partnership, principle of proportionality, tax avoidance, tax evasion








C_2020077EN.01002302.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 November 2019 — M-GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften
(Case C-868/19)
(2020/C 77/34)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M-GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt für Körperschaften

Questions referred







1.


Is the first paragraph of Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax — the VAT Directive (1)— to be interpreted as precluding the rule set out in point 2 of Paragraph 2(2) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (German Law on turnover tax) — the UStG — in so far as that rule prohibits a partnership (in this case: a GmbH & Co. KG (a limited partnership in which the general partner is a limited liability company)) the partners of which, apart from the controlling company, are not exclusively persons financially integrated into the controlling company’s undertaking pursuant to point 2 of Paragraph 2(2) of the UStG, from being a controlled company within the scope of a tax-group arrangement for turnover-tax purposes?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:






(a)


Is the second paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive — regard being had to the principles of proportionality and neutrality — to be interpreted as being capable of justifying an exclusion of partnerships of the type mentioned in Question 1 from a tax-group arrangement for turnover-tax purposes because, in the case of partnerships, there is no obligation to comply with a required form for the conclusion and amendment of partnership agreements under national law and there may, in the event of merely verbal agreements, be difficulties in proving the existence of the financial integration of the controlled company in individual cases?










(b)


Is application of the second paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive precluded if the national legislature did not have the intention of preventing tax evasion or avoidance already at the time when it adopted the measure?










(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9611 — Pavilion Energy/Iberdrola Group (European LNG Asset Portfolio)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 409/02
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas, merger control, natural gas, storage of hydrocarbons, wholesale trade








C_2019409EN.01004801.xml










5.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/48






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9611 — Pavilion Energy/Iberdrola Group (European LNG Asset Portfolio))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 409/02)
On 27 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 32019M9611. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9618 — La Poste/BRT) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 401/05
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, postal service








C_2019401EN.01000601.xml










27.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 401/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9618 — La Poste/BRT)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 401/05)

1.   
On 19 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:






—


GeoPost S.A. (‘GeoPost’, France), belonging to the La Poste group (France),










—


BRT S.p.A. (‘BRT’, Italy).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for GeoPost: a subsidiary of the La Poste group, the French historical postal operator. GeoPost is active in parcel and freight delivery services in Europe, Africa and Asia,










—


for BRT: parcel and freight delivery services mainly in Italy (formerly known as Bartolini), currently jointly controlled by GeoPost and Mifin S.r.l.






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.9618 — La Poste/BRT
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
E-mail: 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.
European Parliament decision of 27 November 2019 electing the Commission (2019/2109(INS))
Date: 2019-11-27
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Commissioner, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, President of the Commission, appointment of members, election








C_2021232EN.01006801.xml










16.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 232/68






P9_TA(2019)0067
Election of the Commission
European Parliament decision of 27 November 2019 electing the Commission (2019/2109(INS))
(2021/C 232/13)

The European Parliament,







—


having regard to the second and third subparagraphs of Article 17(7) of the Treaty on European Union,










—


having regard to Article 106a of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community,










—


having regard to European Council Decision (EU) 2019/1136 of 2 July 2019 (1), proposing Ursula von der Leyen as candidate for President of the Commission,










—


having regard to Ursula von der Leyen’s statement and the presentation of her political guidelines made in plenary sitting on 16 July 2019,










—


having regard to its decision of 16 July 2019 (2) electing Ursula von der Leyen as President of the Commission,










—


having regard to European Council Decision (EU) 2019/1330 (3), taken with the agreement of the President-elect of the Commission, of 5 August 2019 appointing the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,










—


having regard to Council Decision (EU) 2019/1949 taken by common accord with the President-elect of the Commission of 25 November 2019 adopting the list of the other persons whom the Council proposes for appointment as Members of the Commission, and repealing and replacing Decision (EU) 2019/1393 (4),










—


having regard to the hearings of the Commissioners-designate held from 30 September to 14 November 2019 before the parliamentary committees and to the committees’ evaluations of the Commissioners-designate after the hearings,










—


having regard to the examination concluded by the Conference of Committee Chairs on 20 November 2019 and the examination by the Conference of Presidents at its meeting of 21 November 2019,










—


having regard to the statement made in plenary sitting by the President-elect of the Commission on 27 November 2019,










—


having regard to Rule 125 of, and Annex VII to, its Rules of Procedure,












1.


Gives its consent to the appointment of the President, the Vice-President for external relations (High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the other Members of the Commission, as a body, for the term of office running to 31 October 2024;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the European Council, the Council of Ministers and the President-elect of the Commission.






(1)  OJ L 179 I, 3.7.2019, p. 2.

(2)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2019)0002.

(3)  OJ L 207, 7.8.2019, p. 36.

(4)  OJ L 304, 26.11.2019, p. 16.