do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-903/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 10 December 2019 — DQ v Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’action et des comptes publics
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, application of EU law, civil servant, contract staff, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, transfer of pension rights








C_2020061EN.01002001.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 10 December 2019 — DQ v Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’action et des comptes publics
(Case C-903/19)
(2020/C 61/24)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DQ

Defendants: Ministre de la transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’action et des comptes publics

Question referred

Is the benefit of the provisions of Article 11(1) of Annex VIII to the Regulation laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities, (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, (2) reserved exclusively to officials and contract staff posted for the first time within a national administration after having been employed as officials, contract staff or temporary staff in an EU institution, or does that benefit also extend to officials and contract staff returning to the service of a national administration after having performed duties in an EU institution and having been assigned non-active status or granted leave for personal reasons during that period?


(1)  Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (Conditions of Employment of Other Servants) (OJ 1968 L 56, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1).
Case T-66/19: Order of the General Court of 10 December 2019 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaamse Gewest v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Internal market — Fundamental freedoms — Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 — Establishment of a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services — Sub-national authority — Standing to bring proceedings — Individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to information, administrative cooperation, cross-frontier data flow, fundamental rights, information system, provision of services








C_2020061EN.01004002.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/40






Order of the General Court of 10 December 2019 — Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaamse Gewest v Parliament and Council
(Case T-66/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Internal market - Fundamental freedoms - Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 - Establishment of a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services - Sub-national authority - Standing to bring proceedings - Individual concern - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 61/51)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Vlaamse Gemeenschap (Belgium) and Vlaamse Gewest (Belgium) (represented by: T. Eyskens, N. Bonbled and P. Geysens, lawyers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. McDowell, R. van de Westelaken and M. Peternel, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and O. Segnana, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 establishing a single digital gateway to provide access to information, to procedures and to assistance and problem-solving services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission.











3.



Vlaamse Gemeenschap and Vlaamse Gewest shall, in addition to bearing their own costs, pay those incurred by the European Parliament and by the Council of the European Union.











4.



The Commission shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.







(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Case C-901/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 10 December 2019 — CF, DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, civilian victim, public safety, right of asylum, war








C_2020087EN.01000702.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 10 December 2019 — CF, DN v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-901/19)
(2020/C 87/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: CF, DN

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred







1.


Do Article 15(c) and Article 2(f) of Directive 2011/95/EU (1) preclude the interpretation and application of a provision of national law whereby a serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict (in the sense that a civilian would, solely on account of his presence in the relevant region, face a real risk of being subject to such a threat), in cases in which that person is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his personal circumstances, can only exist where a minimum number of civilian casualties (killed and injured) has already been established?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Must the assessment as to whether a threat exists in that sense be conducted on the basis of a comprehensive appraisal of all the circumstances of the individual case? If not: Which other requirements of EU law apply to that assessment?






(1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).
Case T-841/19: Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, plumbing equipment








C_2020045EN.01009101.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/91






Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
(Case T-841/19)
(2020/C 45/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0008

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1009/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;










—


to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3 and R 1010/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;










—


order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;










—


The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9360 — Daimler/Geely/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 21/01
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electric vehicle, merger control, motor vehicle industry, sale








C_2020021EN.01000101.xml










22.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9360 — Daimler/Geely/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 21/01)
On 10 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 32019M9360. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-836/19: Action brought on 10 December 2019 — Première Vision v EUIPO — Vente-Privee.com (PV)
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, cultural event, registered trade mark, trade event, trade-mark law








C_2020045EN.01008701.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/87






Action brought on 10 December 2019 — Première Vision v EUIPO — Vente-Privee.com (PV)
(Case T-836/19)
(2020/C 45/73)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Première Vision (Lyon, France) (represented by: C. Champagner Katz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vente-Privee.com SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark PV — Application for registration No 13 999 578

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2019 in Case R 2125/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the opponent to pay the 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-839/19: Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises et Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, plumbing equipment








C_2020045EN.01008901.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/89






Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises et Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
(Case T-839/19)
(2020/C 45/75)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0002

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1006/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;










—


to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3, R 1010/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;










—


order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;










—


The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties.
Case T-842/19: Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipement)
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, plumbing equipment








C_2020045EN.01009201.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/92






Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products (Fluid distribution equipement)
(Case T-842/19)
(2020/C 45/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0007

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1010/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;










—


to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1008/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;










—


order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;










—


The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties.
Case T-840/19: Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, plumbing equipment








C_2020045EN.01009001.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/90






Action brought on 10 December 2019 – Koopman International v EUIPO – Tinnus Enterprises and Mystic Products Import & Export (Fluid distribution equipement)
(Case T-840/19)
(2020/C 45/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Koopman International BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: B. van Werven, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinnus Enterprises LLC (Plano, Texas, United States) and Mystic Products Import & Export, SL (Badalona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Tinnus Enterprises

Design at issue: European Union design No 1431 829-0005

Contested decision: Interim Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 September 2019 in Case R 1008/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision to suspend the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal and decide that said proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall continue;










—


to join the current case before the General Court with the cases before the General Court in cases R 1006/2018-3, R 1005/2018-3, R 1010/2018-3 and R 1009/2018-3 lodged by Koopman International simultaneous with this action;










—


order Tinnus Enterprises to pay Koopman International’s costs and fees.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘legal certainty’;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘economy of proceedings’;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to correctly assess and apply the criterion of ‘sound administration’;










—


The Board of Appeal did not correctly balance the interests of all parties.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/451 of 19 March 2019 on the harmonised standards for construction products drafted in support of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Official Journal of the European Union L 77 of 20 March 2019)
Date: 2019-12-10
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: European Committee for Standardisation, European standard, building materials, harmonisation of standards, safety standard, technical specification, technical standard








L_2019318EN.01018501.xml










10.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 318/185







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/451 of 19 March 2019 on the harmonised standards for construction products drafted in support of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(Official Journal of the European Union L 77 of 20 March 2019)


On page 82, in Annex I, in the table, in the fourth column ‘Beginning of the coexistence period (dd.mm.yyyy.)’, entries 1 to 6:
for:


                  ‘xx.yy.2019’,

read:


                  ‘
                  20.3.2019
                  ’.

On page 82, in Annex I, in the table, in the fifth column ‘End of the coexistence period (dd.mm.yyyy.)’, entries 3 to 6:
for:


                  ‘xx.yy.2020’,

read:


                  ‘
                  20.3.2020
                  ’.