do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-888/19 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-586/14 RENV, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, financial situation, glass, import (EU), market economy, originating product, solar collector








C_2020045EN.01003101.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/31






Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2019 in Case T-586/14 RENV, Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings v Commission
(Case C-888/19 P)
(2020/C 45/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


reject the second limb of the first plea of the application at first instance, as re-stated in the contested judgment as unfounded;










—


rule itself on the merits of the second limb of the first plea of the application at first instance, as re-stated in the contested judgment;










—


refer the case back to the General Court so that it can decide upon the applicant’s remaining pleas on infringements in law; and










—


order the applicant to pay the appellant’s legal costs and expenses of this procedure as well as the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant maintains that the judgment under appeal should be set aside on the basis of three separate grounds of appeal.
First ground: The General Court committed an error in law in the contested judgment in the interpretation and application of the related concepts of ‘significant distortions’ and ‘financial situation’ under Article 2(7)(c), third indent of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (1) and the consequential shifting of the burden of proof for Market Economy Treatment (MET) from the applicant to the Commission.
Second Ground: The General Court did not respect the limits of the margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Commission in the assessment of MET claims and substituted its own assessment of the exporting producer’s circumstances for that of the Commission.
Third Ground: The appellant seeks the annulment of the first paragraph of the operative part of the contested judgment on the grounds that the General Court, in making this determination, ruled ultra petita.


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51).
Case T-823/19: Action brought on 4 December 2019 — JMS Sports v EUIPO — Inter-Vion (Spiral hair elastics)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, hairdressing and beauty care








C_2020054EN.01005301.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/53






Action brought on 4 December 2019 — JMS Sports v EUIPO — Inter-Vion (Spiral hair elastics)
(Case T-823/19)
(2020/C 54/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties


Applicant: JMS Sports sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: D. Piróg and J. Słupski, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inter-Vion S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the Court

Design at issue: Community design (spiral hair elastics) — Community design No 1723 677-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 in Case R 1573/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO;










—


order the intervener, in the event of intervention, to bear its own costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 5(1) in connection with Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of the rules governing the burden of proof;










—


Infringement of the principle of equality of arms.
Case C-885/19 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in joined cases T-755/15 and T-759/15, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, motor vehicle industry, price agreement, principle of legal certainty








C_2020045EN.01003001.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/30






Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in joined cases T-755/15 and T-759/15, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission
(Case C-885/19 P)
(2020/C 45/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe (represented by: J. Rodriguez, abogado, N. de Boynes, avocat, M. Engel, Rechtsanwalt, G. Maisto, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Ireland

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 September 2019 in joined Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15;










—


annul the contested decision of the Commission of 21 October 2015 (1) in accordance with Article 263(4) TFEU; or in the alternative, if and to the extent that the Court should be unable to make a final decision, refer the case back to the General Court; and










—


order the Commission to pay Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe’s costs pursuant to Articles 138(1), 184(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and to pay Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe’s costs at first instance.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law: the General Court’s analysis of whether Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe derived an advantage from the advance pricing agreement (‘APA’) breaches Article 107 TFEU by virtue of (i) the General Court’s misapplication of the legal test of whether the APA endorsed a methodology that exceeded the applicable margin of appreciation, and (ii) the General Court’s failure to properly define the relevant undertaking that was the beneficiary of the APA.
Second plea in law: the GCEU’s analysis of the legal basis for the Commission’s arm’s length principle (‘ALP’) is inadequate and contradictory and breaches the general principle to give adequate and coherent reasons.
Third plea in law: the GCEU breached the fundamental principle of legal certainty by (i) endorsing the Commission’s ill-defined ALP without addressing its scope or contents, and by (ii) upholding the application of the selectivity presumption to the APA.


(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2326 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) which Luxembourg granted to Fiat (notified under document C(2015) 7152) (OJ 2016, L 351, p. 1).
Case T-524/18: Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2019 — Billa v EUIPO — Boardriders IP Holdings (Billa) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Billa — Earlier EU word marks BILLABONG — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Comparison of the goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, sports equipment, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2020036EN.01002601.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/26






Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2019 — Billa v EUIPO — Boardriders IP Holdings (Billa)
(Case T-524/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Billa - Earlier EU word marks BILLABONG - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Comparison of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 36/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Billa AG (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by: J. Rether, M. Kinkeldey, J. Rosenhäger and S. Brandstätter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Boardriders IP Holdings LLC (Huntington Beach, California, United States) (represented by: J. Fish, Solicitor, and A. Bryson, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 June 2018 (Case R 2235/2017-4), as rectified on 4 October 2018, relating to opposition proceedings between Boardriders IP Holdings and Billa.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 June 2018 (Case R 2235/2017-1) as regards the goods ‘games’ in Class 28 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, covered by the mark applied for;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders each party to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 3 December 20192019/C 408/04
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019408EN.01000501.xml










4.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 December 2019
(2019/C 408/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1071 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,39 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4719 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85200 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5653 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0947 




ISK


Iceland króna


134,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1668 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,527 




HUF


Hungarian forint


331,75 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2845 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7777 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3508 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6186 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4747 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6675 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7000 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5117 




KRW


South Korean won


1 319,15 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2253 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8140 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4400 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 615,65 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6216 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,583 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,0634 




THB


Thai baht


33,529 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6545 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6958 




INR


Indian rupee


79,4300 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-117/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH v European Commission (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.01000401.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 2019 — PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH v European Commission
(Case C-117/18 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 36/04)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH (represented by: M. Jeżewski, O. Waluśkiewicz, adwokaci, E. Buczkowska and M. Trepka, radcowie prawni)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and O. Beynet, acting as Agents),

Intervener in support of the Commission: 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 PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH 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 161, 7.5.2018.
Case C-895/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 4 December 2019 — A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, acquisition of property, basis of tax assessment, goods and services, tax relief








C_2020054EN.01004001.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/40






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Poland) lodged on 4 December 2019 — A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej
(Case C-895/19)
(2020/C 54/44)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: A.

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Question referred

Is Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (as amended), (1) in conjunction with Article 178 thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which makes the exercise of the right to deduct input tax in the same accounting period as that in which the tax due was payable on the transactions constituting Community acquisitions of goods subject to entry of the tax due on those transactions in the appropriate tax declaration submitted within the mandatory period (in Poland, three months) following the end of the month in which the tax liability arose in relation to the goods and services acquired?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Recommendation No 1/2019 of the EU-Morocco Association Council of 4 December 2019 approving the extension of the EU-Morocco Action Plan implementing the advanced status (2013-2017) by two years [2019/2159]
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: EU–Morocco Association Council
Subjects: European neighbourhood policy, Mediterranean region (EU), Morocco, Union for the Mediterranean, action programme, association agreement (EU), political cooperation








L_2019327EN.01010801.xml










17.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 327/108








            RECOMMENDATION No 1/2019 OF THE EU-MOROCCO ASSOCIATION COUNCIL
         
of 4 December 2019
         
approving the extension of the EU-Morocco Action Plan implementing the advanced status (2013-2017) by two years [2019/2159]


THE EU-MOROCCO ASSOCIATION COUNCIL,

having regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Kingdom of Morocco, of the other part (the ‘Agreement’) entered into force on 1 March 2000.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 80 of the Agreement, the Association Council may issue any recommendation which it considers appropriate for the purposes of attaining the objectives of the Agreement.












(3)


In accordance with Article 90 of the Agreement, the Parties are to take any general or specific measures required to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement and to ensure that the objectives set out in the Agreement are achieved.












(4)


Article 10 of the rules of procedure of the Association Council provides for the possibility of issuing recommendations between sessions by written procedure.












(5)


The Action Plan implementing the advanced status (2013-2017) (‘Action Plan’) was extended by one year in 2018. The further extension of the Action Plan by two years will constitute the basis of EU-Morocco relations for 2019 and 2020 and will enable new priority areas for EU-Morocco relations to be established for the years ahead,





RECOMMENDS:



Sole Article
The Association Council, acting by written procedure, recommends the extension of the EU-Morocco Action Plan implementing the advanced status (2013-2017) by two years.




Done at Brussels, 4 December 2019.


For the EU-Morocco Association Council


The President

N. BOURITA
            





(1)  
            OJ L 70, 18.3.2000, p. 2.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9608 — ENGIE/CDC/CNR Solaire 10) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 408/05
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy production, energy supply, gas supply, merger control, renewable energy, services of general interest, wind energy








C_2019408EN.01000601.xml










4.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9608 — ENGIE/CDC/CNR Solaire 10)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 408/05)

1.   
On 25 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:






—


CN’Air (France), controlled by ENGIE (France),










—


Caisse des dépôts et consignations (‘CDC’, France),










—


CNR Solaire 10 (France), controlled by CN’Air (France).




ENGIE and CDC acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of CNR Solaire 10.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


CDC is a special status public establishment which conducts missions of general interest and activities open to competition,










—


CN’Air is active in the renewable energy sector and a subsidiary of ENGIE which is active in the entire energy value chain in the fields of gas, electricity and energy services,










—


CNR Solaire 10 is active in the opearation of wind farms in France.






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.9608 — ENGIE/CDC/CNR Solaire 10
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-898/19 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in joined Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission
Date: 2019-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Luxembourg, State aid, control of State aid, direct tax, motor vehicle industry, principle of legal certainty, restriction on competition, tax authorities, tax relief








C_2020054EN.01004101.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/41






Appeal brought on 4 December 2019 by Ireland against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 24 September 2019 in joined Cases T-755/15 and T-759/15, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission
(Case C-898/19 P)
(2020/C 54/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, A. Joyce, J. Quaney, P. Gallagher SC, Agents, S. Kingston, B. Doherty, BL)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 September 2019 in Joined Cases, T-755/15 and T-759/15, Luxembourg and Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe v Commission;










—


annul the Commission’s decision (1) of 21 October 2015, and










—


order the Commission to pay the cost of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First ground: the General Court erred in law and misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU in its approach to the so-called ‘arm’s-length principle’.
Second ground: the General Court erred in law and misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU in its analysis of selectivity.
Third ground: the General Court breached its duty to give reasons for its judgment.
Fourth ground: the General Court breached the principle of legal certainty by agreeing that the Commission could review decisions of national tax administrations by reference to a Commission version of the arm’s-length principle which was unpredictable and whose content is unknown.
Fifth ground: the General Court breached Articles 4 and 5 TEU and impermissibly used the State aid rules to harmonise Member States’ direct taxation rules.


(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2016/2326 of 21 October 2015 on State aid SA.38375 (2014/C ex 2014/NN) which Luxembourg granted to Fiat (notified under document C(2015) 7152) (OJ 2016, L 351, p. 1).