do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-882/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 3 December 2019 — Sumal, S.L. v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L.
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, legal doctrine, liability, parent company, restriction on competition, subsidiary








C_2020087EN.01000701.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 3 December 2019 — Sumal, S.L. v Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L.
(Case C-882/19)
(2020/C 87/09)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sumal, S.L.

Defendant: Mercedes Benz Trucks España, S.L.

Questions referred







(A)


Does the doctrine of the single economic unit developed by the Court of Justice provide grounds for extending liability from the parent company to the subsidiary, or does the doctrine apply solely in order to extend liability from subsidiaries to the parent company?










(B)


In the context of intra-group relationships, should the concept of single economic unit be extended solely on the basis of issues of control, or can it also be extended on the basis of other criteria, including the possibility that the subsidiary may have benefited from the infringing acts?










(C)


If it is possible to extend liability from the parent company to the subsidiary, what would be required in order for it to be possible?










(D)


If the answers to the earlier questions support the extension of subsidiaries’ liability to cover acts of the parent company, would a provision of national law such as Article 71(2) of the Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the Protection of Competition), which provides only for liability incurred by the subsidiary to be extended to the parent company, and then only where the parent company exercises control over the subsidiary, be compatible with that Community doctrine?
Case C-880/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2019 — VZ and Others v Eurowings GmbH
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_2020087EN.01000601.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2019 — VZ and Others v Eurowings GmbH
(Case C-880/19)
(2020/C 87/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: VZ and Others

Defendant: Eurowings GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the re-routing referred to therein which allows the passenger to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure is to be carried out from the same airport of departure as that of the booked flight or could a departure from another airport also be considered?










2.


In the case where a departure from another airport could also be considered, is it solely decisive whether the departure takes place no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure, irrespective of how far the passenger travels to the airport or is the difference in timing also to be taken into account in connection with the passenger’s journey to the airport?






(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-820/19: Action brought on 3 December 2019 – Totalizator Sportowy v EUIPO – Lottoland Holdings (LOTTOLAND)
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, provision of services, registered trade mark, scientific research, technology, trade-mark law








C_2020045EN.01008201.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/82






Action brought on 3 December 2019 – Totalizator Sportowy v EUIPO – Lottoland Holdings (LOTTOLAND)
(Case T-820/19)
(2020/C 45/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Totalizator Sportowy sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lottoland Holdings Ltd (Ocean Village, Gibraltar)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark LOTTOLAND – European Union trade mark No 11 369 981

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 October 2019 in Case R 97/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in the part declaring the EUTM 11 369 981 LOTTOLAND to remain in force for all the services for which the contested EUTM was registered in class 42;










—


alter the contested decision by declaring the EUTM 11 369 981 LOTTOLAND invalid in its entirety, including the services for wich the contested decision was registered in class 42;




alternatively,






—


remit the case to the EUIPO;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(5) of the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 of 05/03/2018 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, repealing Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/1430.
Case T-658/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2019 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a chequered gingham pattern) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a chequered gingham pattern — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, furniture industry, marketing, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2020027EN.01003101.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/31






Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2019 — Hästens Sängar v EUIPO (Representation of a chequered gingham pattern)
(Case T-658/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a chequered gingham pattern - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 27/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hästens Sängar AB (Köping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson and R. Wessman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, H. O’Neill and D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 August 2018 (Case R 442/2018-2) concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a figurative mark representing a chequered gingham pattern.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Hästens Sängar AB to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9605 — DAK Americas/Lotte Chemical UK) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 422/04
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, motor vehicle industry, plastics industry, refrigeration industry, telecommunications industry








C_2019422EN.01000401.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9605 — DAK Americas/Lotte Chemical UK)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 422/04)
On 3 December 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 32019M9605. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-808/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2019 — Pethke v EUIPO (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal report — Regularity of appraisal procedures and appraisal appeal procedures — Requirement for the appeal assessor to be impartial)
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020027EN.01003001.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/30






Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2019 — Pethke v EUIPO
(Case T-808/17) ( (1))
(Civil service - Officials - Appraisal report - Regularity of appraisal procedures and appraisal appeal procedures - Requirement for the appeal assessor to be impartial)
(2020/C 27/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Ralph Pethke (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2016 and, if necessary, annulment of the decision by the Management Board of EUIPO of 18 October 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1)



Annuls Ralph Pethke’s appraisal report for 2016 and the decision of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 18 October 2017 rejecting the complaint made by Mr Pethke;











2)



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Pethke.







(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Case C-886/19 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2019 by Pink Lady America LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-112/18, Pink Lady America v CPVO
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: pip fruit, plant variety right, principle of legal certainty








C_2020161EN.01001601.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/16






Appeal brought on 3 December 2019 by Pink Lady America LLC against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-112/18, Pink Lady America v CPVO
(Case C-886/19 P)
(2020/C 161/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Pink Lady America LLC (represented by: R. Manno, S. Sernia, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office, Western Australian Agriculture Authority (WAAA)
By order of 3 March 2020 the Court of JusticeJustice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Pink Lady America LLC shall bear its own costs.
Case C-668/18: Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — BP v Uniparts SARL
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, independence of the judiciary, judge, retirement conditions, right to justice, rule of law








C_2020137EN.01004203.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/42






Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — BP v Uniparts SARL
(Case C-668/18) (1)

(2020/C 137/60)
Language of the case: Polish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Case C-183/19 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 December 2019 — Fruits de Poment, SCCL v European Commission (Appeal — Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Markets for soft fruits — Disruption during the 2014 season — Temporary exceptional support measures for producers — Action to establish non-contractual liability)
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU agricultural market, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, indemnification, market stabilisation, producer organisation, stone fruit








C_2020137EN.01002601.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/26






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 December 2019 — Fruits de Poment, SCCL v European Commission
(Case C-183/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Markets for soft fruits - Disruption during the 2014 season - Temporary exceptional support measures for producers - Action to establish non-contractual liability)
(2020/C 137/34)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Fruits de Poment, SCCL (represented by: M. Roca Junyent, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, W. Farrell and A. Sauka, Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed.










2.


Fruits de Poment SCCL is ordered to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29. 4. 2019.
Case T-99/17: Order of the General Court of 3 December 2019 — Eutelsat v GSA
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU office or agency, award of contract, equal treatment, satellite communications, satellite navigation, tendering








C_2020036EN.01003901.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/39






Order of the General Court of 3 December 2019 — Eutelsat v GSA
(Case T-99/17) (1)

(2020/C 36/47)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.
Case T-607/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2019 — Yieh United Steel v Commission (Dumping — Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 — Article 2(3) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(3) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) — Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/1036) — Calculation of the normal value — Calculation of the production cost — Sales of the like product intended for consumption on the domestic market of the exporting country)
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Taiwan, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, plate








C_2020027EN.01002901.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/29






Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2019 — Yieh United Steel v Commission
(Case T-607/15) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in China and Taiwan - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 - Article 2(3) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(3) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036) - Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (now Article 2(1) and (2) of Regulation 2016/1036) - Calculation of the normal value - Calculation of the production cost - Sales of the like product intended for consumption on the domestic market of the exporting country)
(2020/C 27/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Yieh United Steel Corp. (Kaohsiung City, Taiwan) (represented by D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by J. Killick, G. Forwood and C. Van Haute, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Yieh United Steel Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Eurofer, Association européenne de l’acier, ASBL.







(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.
Case C-893/19 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2019 by Roxtec AB against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-261/18, Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric cable, piping, plastics, registered trade mark, synthetic rubber, trade-mark law








C_2020279EN.01001602.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/16






Appeal brought on 3 December 2019 by Roxtec AB against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-261/18, Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax
(Case C-893/19 P)
(2020/C 279/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Roxtec AB (represented by: T. Lampel, Rechtsanwalt, K. Wagner, Rechtsanwältin, J. Olsson, advokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Wallmax Srl
By order of 12 March 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case C-676/18: Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, national implementing measure, sanction (EU), seasonal worker








C_2020137EN.01004301.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/43






Order of the President of the Court of 3 December 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-676/18) (1)

(2020/C 137/61)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 16, 14.1.2019.
Case T-822/19: Action brought on 3 December 2019 — Asoliva and Anierac v Commission
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: infringement of EU law, olive oil, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, product quality, qualitative analysis, quality control of agricultural products, rights of the defence








C_2020027EN.01007101.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 27/71






Action brought on 3 December 2019 — Asoliva and Anierac v Commission
(Case T-822/19)
(2020/C 27/72)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Asociación Española de la Industria y Comercio Exportador de Aceite de Oliva (Asoliva) (Madrid, Spain) and Asociación Nacional de Industriales Envasadores y Refinadores de Aceites Comestibles (Anierac) (Madrid) (represented by V. Rodríguez Fuentes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should annul Article 1(1)(b) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1604 of 27 September 2019 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis, published in OJ 2019 L 250, p. 14.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the Treaties






—


The applicants take the view that, by imposing an irrefutable presumption of non-conformity of the quality of olive oil, which gives rise to penalties, the contested act infringes the principle of the presumption of innocence under Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty






—


The applicants take the view that the irrefutable presumption of non-conformity laid down by the contested act undermines legal certainty, since it is based on a method which, on account of the lack of precision, does not make it possible to ensure compliance with the applicable standard with sufficient certainty.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality with respect to the freedom to conduct a business






—


The applicants take the view that the irrefutable presumption of non-conformity laid down by the contested act disproportionately restricts the freedom to conduct a business by laying down a restriction thereon with an imprecise method from which absolute consequences are derived, without taking account of other existing methods or means of proof.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9580 — Permira/Smith&Williamson) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 422/03
Date: 2019-12-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2019422EN.01000301.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9580 — Permira/Smith&Williamson)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 422/03)
On 3 December 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 32019M9580. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.