do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-887/19 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2019 in Case T-491/18, Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, fodder, food supplement, foodstuff, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2020095EN.01001401.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/14






Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 October 2019 in Case T-491/18, Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas
(Case C-887/19 P)
(2020/C 95/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas (represented by: F. Lichtnecker, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Vafo Praha s.r.o.
By order of 11 February 2020 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that Ms Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas shall bear her own costs.
Case C-413/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — H v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) — Composition of the Chamber of the General Court of the European Union — Regularity — Decision 2009/906/CFSP — European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUPM) — National staff member on secondment — Redeployment to a regional office of that mission — Powers of the Head of Mission — Misuse of powers — Claim for damages — Principle of audi alteram partem)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU police mission, abuse of power, damages, expatriate worker, reassignment








C_2020036EN.01000701.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/7






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — H v Council of the European Union
(Case C-413/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - Composition of the Chamber of the General Court of the European Union - Regularity - Decision 2009/906/CFSP - European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (EUPM) - National staff member on secondment - Redeployment to a regional office of that mission - Powers of the Head of Mission - Misuse of powers - Claim for damages - Principle of audi alteram partem)
(2020/C 36/08)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: H (represented by: M. Velardo, avvocatessa)

Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and A. De Elera San Miguel Hurtado, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 April 2018, H v Council (T-271/10 RENV, EU:T:2018:180);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the third, fourth and fifth pleas of the action for annulment and on the claim for compensation;










3.


Orders that the costs be reserved.






(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Case T-829/19: Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, alcoholic beverage, business administration, business management, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020054EN.01005401.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/54






Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)
(Case T-829/19)
(2020/C 54/60)
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA — Application for registration No 12 945 879

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 2531/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


join the proceedings on the applications against the decision of the defendant of 5 September 2019 in Cases R 2531/2018-2, R 2532/2018-2 and R 2533/2018-2;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-826/19: Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Tazzetti v Commission
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, equal treatment, exchange of information, greenhouse gas, information system, market approval, ownership, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, reduction of gas emissions








C_2020045EN.01008501.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/85






Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Tazzetti v Commission
(Case T-826/19)
(2020/C 45/70)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Tazzetti, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, E. Ferrero and C. Vivani, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the contested decisions void, after finding that they are unlawful and, where appropriate, after disapplying Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/661, in particular Article 7 thereof;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks (i) the annulment of Commission Decision (note) ARES (2019) 6048224 of 30 September 2019, addressed to the applicant, of Commission Decision (note) ARES (2019) 6014426 of 27 September 2019, addressed to Tazzetti SpA, Commission Decision (note) ARES (2019) 6024220 of 27 September 2019, addressed to Tazzetti SpA, as well as of subsequent decisions, and, (ii) where necessary, after finding, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, that Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/661 of 25 April 2019 ensuring the smooth functioning of the electronic registry for quotas for placing hydrofluorocarbons on the market (OJ 2019 L 112, p. 11), in particular Article 7 thereof, is unlawful, a declaration of inapplicability, and as a result, the annulment of the aforementioned decisions implementing that regulation.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-825/19, Tazzetti v Commission.
Case C-181/18 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Republic of Poland v PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU Article 263 — Admissibility — Decision which is of neither direct nor individual concern to the appellant — Regulatory act — Absence — Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Assessment of the pleas on the substance — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection and to a fair trial — Principle of audi alteram partem — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, auction sale, energy supply, energy transport, gas pipeline, gas supply, market access, natural gas, right to justice, security of supply








C_2020068EN.01001701.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/17






Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Republic of Poland v PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH, European Commission
(Case C-181/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU Article 263 - Admissibility - Decision which is of neither direct nor individual concern to the appellant - Regulatory act - Absence - Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Assessment of the pleas on the substance - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection and to a fair trial - Principle of audi alteram partem - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
(2020/C 68/15)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH (represented by: M. Jeżewski, adwokat), European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially by T. Henze and R. Kanitz, then by R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;










2.


The Republic of Poland is to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Case T-830/19: Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, alcoholic beverage, business administration, business management, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020054EN.01005501.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/55






Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 VODKA)
(Case T-830/19)
(2020/C 54/61)
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark BLEND 42 VODKA in light blue and dark blue — Application for registration No 12 946 034

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 2532/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


join the proceedings on the applications against the decision of the defendant of 5 September 2019 in Cases R 2531/2018-2, R 2532/2018-2 and R 2533/2018-2;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-831/19: Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, alcoholic beverage, business administration, business management, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020054EN.01005601.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/56






Action brought on 4 December 2019 — Palírna U Zeleného stromu v EUIPO — Bacardi (BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA)
(Case T-831/19)
(2020/C 54/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Palírna U Zeleného stromu a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi & Co. Ltd (Meyrin, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark BLEND 42 FIRST CZECH BLENDED VODKA in white, red, grey, light blue, dark blue and orange — Application for registration No 12 946 182

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 in Case R 2533/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


join the proceedings on the applications against the decision of the defendant of 5 September 2019 in Cases R 2531/2018-2, R 2532/2018-2 and R 2533/2018-2;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and the intervener to pay the applicant’s costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-342/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 32 — Third-party access — Article 41(6), (8) and (10) — Rules on tariffs — Article 36 — Application for an exemption — Rules governing the operation of the OPAL pipeline — National regulatory authority — Exemption decision — Request for modification — European Commission Decision — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Admissibility — Decision of no direct concern to the appellant)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, derogation from EU law, gas pipeline, gas supply, natural gas, security of supply, single market








C_2020036EN.01000402.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-342/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 32 - Third-party access - Article 41(6), (8) and (10) - Rules on tariffs - Article 36 - Application for an exemption - Rules governing the operation of the OPAL pipeline - National regulatory authority - Exemption decision - Request for modification - European Commission Decision - Action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Admissibility - Decision of no direct concern to the appellant)
(2020/C 36/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (represented initially by M. Jeżewski, adwokat, and subsequently E. Buczkowska, radca prawny and W. Sadowski, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and O. Beynet, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. to pay its own costs and bear those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Case C-432/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v Balema GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — Regulations (EC) No 510/2006 and (EU) No 1151/2012 — Article 13(1) — Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 — Article 1 — Registration of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’ — Protection of the non-geographical components of that name — Scope)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, condiment, designation of origin, originating product, product designation








C_2020036EN.01000901.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena v Balema GmbH
(Case C-432/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - Regulations (EC) No 510/2006 and (EU) No 1151/2012 - Article 13(1) - Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 - Article 1 - Registration of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)’ - Protection of the non-geographical components of that name - Scope)
(2020/C 36/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Consorzio Tutela Aceto Balsamico di Modena

Defendant: Balema GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 583/2009 of 3 July 2009 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Aceto Balsamico di Modena (PGI)] must be interpreted as meaning that the protection of the name ‘Aceto Balsamico di Modena’ does not extend to the use of the individual non-geographical terms of that name.


(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-493/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — UB v VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, acting as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 3(1) — Actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings and which are closely connected with such proceedings — Sale of immovable property and creation of a mortgage — Action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy seeking a declaration that the transactions concerned are ineffective — Article 25(1) — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, mortgage, sale








C_2020036EN.01001001.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/10






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — UB v VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, acting as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA
(Case C-493/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 3(1) - Actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings and which are closely connected with such proceedings - Sale of immovable property and creation of a mortgage - Action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy seeking a declaration that the transactions concerned are ineffective - Article 25(1) - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened)
(2020/C 36/12)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UB

Defendants: VA, Tiger SCI, WZ, acting as UB’s trustee in bankruptcy, Banque patrimoine et immobilier SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that an action brought by the trustee in bankruptcy appointed by a court of the Member State within the territory of which the insolvency proceedings were opened seeking a declaration that the sale of immovable property situated in another Member State and the mortgage granted over it are ineffective as against the general body of creditors falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the first Member State.










2.


Article 25(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment by which a court of the Member State in which the insolvency proceedings were opened authorises the trustee in bankruptcy to bring an action in another Member State, even if that action falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of that court, cannot have the effect of conferring international jurisdiction on the courts of that other Member State.






(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Council Decision of 4 December 2019 appointing three members and three alternates to the Administrative Board of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators2019/C 409/04
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU Member State, European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, appointment of members, board of directors, decision-making body (EU)




C_2019409EN.01005001.xml










5.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 409/50






COUNCIL DECISION
of 4 December 2019
appointing three members and three alternates to the Administrative Board of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators
(2019/C 409/04)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/942 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 establishing a European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (1), and in particular Article 18 thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


Regulation (EU) 2019/942 provides that the Council is to appoint five members and their alternates to the Administrative Board of the European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (the ‘Administrative Board’).










(2)


In accordance with Regulation (EU) 2019/942, a member of the Administrative Board cannot be a member of the Board of Regulators of ACER, and the members of the Administrative Board are to act independently and objectively in the interest of the Union as a whole.










(3)


In view of the expiry of the term of office of three members and two alternates of the Administrative Board appointed by the Council, new appointments should be made to replace them. Furthermore, as one candidate currently acting as an alternate is to be reappointed for a period of four years, another alternate should be appointed to fulfil that candidate’s current mandate for the remainder of its term,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1
The following persons shall be appointed as members to the Administrative Board for a period of four years from 28 January 2020:






—


Mr Michel THIOLLIÈRE, France,










—


Mr Bogdan Marius CHIRIȚOIU, Romania,










—


Ms Karin LUNNING, Sweden.






Article 2
The following persons shall be appointed as alternate members to the Administrative Board for a period of four years from 28 January 2020:






—


Mr Zhecho Donchev STANKOV, Bulgaria,










—


Mr Paweł PIKUS, Poland.






Article 3
The following person shall be appointed as an alternate member to the Administrative Board for a period of two years from 28 January 2020 to replace current alternate member Mr PIKUS:






—


Mr Václav BARTUŠKA, Czechia.






Article 4
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.


Done at Brussels, 4 December 2019.


For the Council


The President

H. KOSONEN




(1)  OJ L 158, 14.6.2019, p. 22.