do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-143/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 — Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 15 and 66 — Genuine use of an EU collective trade mark — Mark concerning a system of collection and recovery of packaging waste — Affixing to the packaging of goods for which the mark is registered)
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, packaging, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, waste recycling








C_2020054EN.01001101.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/11






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2019 — Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-143/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 15 and 66 - Genuine use of an EU collective trade mark - Mark concerning a system of collection and recovery of packaging waste - Affixing to the packaging of goods for which the mark is registered)
(2020/C 54/13)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältin)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 September 2018, Der Grüne Punkt v EUIPO — Halston Properties (Representation of a circle with two arrows) (T-253/17, EU:T:2018:909);










2.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 February 2017 (Case R 1357/2015-5);










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH relating to both this appeal and the proceedings at first instance.






(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9671 — Apollo/Blue Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 428/02
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, furniture industry, investment company, merger control, retail trade, supplier








C_2019428EN.01000201.xml










20.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 428/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9671 — Apollo/Blue Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 428/02)
On 12 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 32019M9671. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-625/19 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against XD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — Criteria — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purpose of criminal proceedings)
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, judicial review, principle of proportionality, public prosecutor's department, right to justice








C_2020054EN.01001201.xml










17.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 54/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against XD
(Case C-625/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Criteria - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purpose of criminal proceedings)
(2020/C 54/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

XD

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection from which a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant is issued for the purpose of criminal proceedings must benefit are fulfilled if, according to the law of the issuing Member State, the conditions for issuing such a warrant, and in particular its proportionality, are subject to judicial review in that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 382, 11.11.2019.
Case T-844/19: Action brought on 12 December 2019 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Peikert (discount-apotheke.de)
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, dietary product, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, pharmacology, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020045EN.01009401.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/94






Action brought on 12 December 2019 — Apologistics v EUIPO — Peikert (discount-apotheke.de)
(Case T-844/19)
(2020/C 45/80)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Apologistics GmbH (Markkleeberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hug, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Franz Michael Peikert (Offenbach, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark discount-apotheke.de in light green, dark green and white — Application for registration No 14 678 007

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2019 in Case R 2309/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and the Opposition Division’s decision of 5 October 2018;










—


order EUIPO 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9678 — Keppel Infrastructure/MET Capital/MET) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 419/09
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, energy industry, gas supply, merger control, wholesale selling








C_2019419EN.01001701.xml










12.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/17






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9678 — Keppel Infrastructure/MET Capital/MET)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 419/09)

1.   
On 6 December 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:






—


Keppel Infrastructure Holdings Pte. Ltd. (‘Keppel Infrastructure’, Singapore),










—


MET Capital Partners AG (‘MET Capital’, Switzerland),










—


MET Holding AG (‘MET’, Switzerland), controlled by MET Capital.




Keppel Infrastructure and MET Capital acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of MET.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Keppel Infrastructure controls a group of companies active in the fields of energy and environmental infrastructure,










—


MET Capital holds participations in entities in the energy sector,










—


MET is an integrated European energy company, headquartered in Switzerland, with diversified activities through its subsidiaries in natural gas, LNG/LPG, power and oil, focused on multi-commodity wholesale, trading and sales, as well as energy infrastructure and industrial assets.






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.9678 — Keppel Infrastructure/MET Capital/MET
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.
No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement 2019/C 419/05
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy supply








C_2019419EN.01001101.xml










12.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/11






No State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement
(2019/C 419/05)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:







Date of adoption of the decision



10 September 2019





Case No



83877





Decision No



064/19/COL





EFTA State



Iceland





Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)



Arbitral award between Landsvirkjun and Elkem





Legal basis



The Fifth Amendment to the Power Contract concluded in 1976 between Landsvirkjun and Elkem





Type of measure



No State aid




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case T-692/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — Montanari v EEAS (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Ad hoc inspection report — Refusal of access — Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual — Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Article 8(b) of Regulation No 45/2001 — Transfer of personal data — Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations — Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, data protection, decision-making, personal data, protection of privacy, report








C_2020036EN.01002901.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/29






Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — Montanari v EEAS
(Case T-692/18) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Ad hoc inspection report - Refusal of access - Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the privacy and integrity of the individual - Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Article 8(b) of Regulation No 45/2001 - Transfer of personal data - Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations - Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Obligation to state reasons)
(2020/C 36/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marco Montanari (Reggio Emilia, Italy) (represented by: A. Champetier and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spac and E. Orgován, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of EEAS of 24 October 2018 by which EEAS refused to grant the applicant access to the report of 29 July 2017 drawn up by A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of 24 October 2018 by which the European External Action Service (EEAS) rejected the confirmatory application for access to documents made by Mr Marco Montanari on 13 September 2018;











2.



Orders EEAS to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Case C-916/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2019 — Alpha Trading SpA unipersonale v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, biofuel, control of State aid, enforcement of ruling, excise duty, retroactivity of a law, secondary legislation, tax relief








C_2020095EN.01001601.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2019 — Alpha Trading SpA unipersonale v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others
(Case C-916/19)
(2020/C 95/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Alpha Trading SpA unipersonale

Defendant: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Questions referred

In the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union — in the light of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) of 22 March 1999, as amended, Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (2) of 21 April 2004, and any further relevant provisions of [EU] law — does the definition of State aid, as such subject to an obligation of prior notification to the European Commission, cover a secondary regulatory instrument such as the regulation adopted by means of Ministerial Decree No 37/2015 — which is being challenged in these proceedings — which, in direct enforcement of judgments of the Council of State requiring the annulment in part of the previous regulations already notified to the Commission, has retroactively affected the procedures for application of the reduced excise duty on biodiesel by retroactively amending the criteria for distribution of the benefit thereof among the applicant companies without extending the duration of the programme of tax concessions?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).
Case T-270/18: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — O'Flynn and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, control of State aid, economic aid, infringement procedure (EU), right to justice








C_2020061EN.01006201.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/62






Order of the General Court of 12 December 2019 — O'Flynn and Others v Commission
(Case T-270/18) (1)

(2020/C 61/78)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Council Conclusions on the Future Of Civil Justice Cooperation 2019/C 419/02
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: approximation of laws, civil law, civil procedure, commercial law, international cooperation, judicial cooperation, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU








C_2019419EN.01000601.xml










12.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 419/6






Council Conclusions on the Future Of Civil Justice Cooperation
(2019/C 419/02)

1.   

The Council underlines the importance of civil justice cooperation for citizens’ and companies’ everyday life and recalls the commitments taken with the Tampere conclusions and Stockholm Programme. The Council stresses that for carrying out the objectives of the Strategic Agenda 2019-2024 further reflection on the civil justice cooperation acquis is required. In terms of future action, the Council emphasises the need to prioritise effective implementation, enforcement, evaluation of application and functioning of existing EU instruments as well as digitalisation. The existing EU legal framework should be as user friendly as possible. Any new legislative initiatives must be based on evidence of clear added value and of practical needs of citizens and businesses. Where the initiatives aim at harmonising substantive civil law they should not unnecessarily impede on well-functioning national legal frameworks already in place.



2.   

The Council recalls that, in order to ensure coherence and consistency of the civil justice cooperation acquis, legislative proposals in the civil law area should be properly coordinated and fragmentation should be avoided not only in the negotiation process but also later in the process of implementation.



3.   

The Council stresses the key role of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters and the European e-Justice Portal in implementation and application of legislation and invites the Commission and Member States to use their best efforts to enhance the visibility and use of these tools amongst practitioners. Recalling the importance of e-CODEX, the Council invites the Commission to consider all options, legislative and non-legislative, to ensure its long-term sustainability and management.



4.   

The Council recalls that a multilateral approach is an essential element of international cooperation also in the field of civil justice. The Council expresses its support to the key multilateral organisations in the field: the Hague Conference on Private International Law, UNCITRAL and UNIDROIT. For particular cases where multilateral cooperation is not an option, the Council invites the Commission to present effective alternatives to cater for citizens’ and companies’ needs.
Case C-917/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2019 — Novaol Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others
Date: 2019-12-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, biofuel, control of State aid, enforcement of ruling, excise duty, retroactivity of a law, secondary legislation, tax relief








C_2020095EN.01001701.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 12 December 2019 — Novaol Srl v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others
(Case C-917/19)
(2020/C 95/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Novaol Srl

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali e del Turismo, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

Question referred

In the view of the Court of Justice of the European Union — in the light of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999, (1) as amended, Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004, (2) and any further relevant provisions of [EU] law — does the definition of State aid, as such subject to an obligation of prior notification to the European Commission, cover a secondary regulatory instrument such as the regulation adopted by means of Ministerial Decree No 37/2015 — which is being challenged in these proceedings — which, in direct enforcement of judgments of the Council of State requiring the annulment in part of the previous regulations already notified to the Commission, has retroactively affected the procedures for application of the reduced excise duty on biodiesel by retroactively amending the criteria for distribution of the benefit thereof among the applicant companies without extending the duration of the programme of tax concessions?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).