do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-624/18: Judgment of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Gres de Aragón v EUIPO (GRES ARAGÓN) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU figurative mark GRES ARAGÓN — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law)
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, ceramics, export, import, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2020061EN.01002901.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/29






Judgment of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Gres de Aragón v EUIPO (GRES ARAGÓN)
(Case T-624/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark GRES ARAGÓN - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Error of law)
(2020/C 61/35)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Gres de Aragón, SA (Alcalñiz, Spain) (represented by: J. Learte Álvarez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, H. O’Neill and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 August 2018 (Case R 2269/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign GRES ARAGÓN as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 August 2018 (Case R 2269/2017-1);











2.



Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Decision (EU, Euratom) 2019/2206 of the European Parliament of 18 December 2019 electing the European Ombudsman
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Ombudsman, appointment of members








L_2019332EN.01001601.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 332/16








            DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2019/2206 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
         
of 18 December 2019
         
electing the European Ombudsman


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 24 and Article 228 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,


Having regard to its Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (1),


Having regard to Rule 231 of its Rules of Procedure,


Having regard to the call for nominations (2),

Having regard to its vote of 18 December 2019,
HAS DECIDED:


to elect Emily O’REILLY to exercise the function of European Ombudsman until the end of the parliamentary term.



Done at Strasbourg, 18 December 2019.


For the European Parliament


The President

D. M. SASSOLI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15.

(2)  
            OJ C 293, 30.8.2019, p. 1.
Case T-763/18: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Allegedly unlawful aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers — Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market — Time limit for bringing an action — Point from which time starts to run — Knowledge acquired — Proof — Duty of diligence — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Hungary, State aid, aid to disadvantaged groups, control of State aid, employment aid, equal treatment, overheads, proof, restriction on competition, worker with disabilities








C_2020061EN.01003901.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/39






Order of the General Court of 18 December 2019 — Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi v Commission
(Case T-763/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Allegedly unlawful aid implemented by Hungary in favour of undertakings employing disabled workers - Alleged Commission decisions declaring the aid measure compatible with the internal market - Time limit for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Knowledge acquired - Proof - Duty of diligence - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 61/49)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (Lazarus Kft.) (Békés, Hungary) (represented by: L. Szabó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and C. Georgieva-Kecsmar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions allegedly adopted by the Commission concerning, first, complaint SA.29432 — CP 290/2009 — Hungary — Aid for the employment of disabled workers alleged to be unlawful due to the discriminatory nature of the legislation and, second, complaint SA.45498 (FC/2016) — Complaint by OPS Újpest-lift Kft. concerning the State aid granted between 2006 and 2012 to undertakings employing disabled workers.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



Lazarus Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft. (Lazarus Kft.) shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9593 — PTT GC/ALPLA TH/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 425/11
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, packaging, petrochemicals, plastics industry, recycled product








C_2019425EN.01005601.xml










18.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/56






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9593 — PTT GC/ALPLA TH/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 425/11)

1.   
On 9 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:






—


PTT Global Chemical Public Company Limited (‘PTT GC’, Thailand),










—


ALPLA TH Recyclingbeteiligungsgesellschaft m.b.H.A, (‘ALPLA TH’, Austria), and










—


ENVICCO Limited ‘JV’, Thailand)




PTT GC and ALPLA TH acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of JV.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


PTT GC manufactures and supplies upstream, intermediate, and downstream petrochemical products, including PolyEthylene Terephthalate (PET) and High Density Polyethylene (HDPE),










—


ALPLA TH developes and produces rigid plastic packaging solutions such as packaging systems (i.e. bottles with caps/closure), bottles, closures, injection-moulded parts, preforms and tubes,










—


JV will produce and supply mechanically recycled plastics, namely recycled PET and recycled HDPE, made from post-consumed packaging materials.






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.9593 — PTT GC/ALPLA TH/JV
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-929/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2019 — Criminal proceedings against CD
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, constitutional court, corruption, fraud against the EU, higher court, judge, judicial review, primacy of EU law, right to justice, ruling








C_2020201EN.01000701.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 18 December 2019 — Criminal proceedings against CD
(Case C-929/19)
(2020/C 201/10)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Defendant in the main proceedings

CD

Other parties to the proceedings

CLD, GLO, ȘDC, PVV, SC Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA, Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție — Direcția Națională Anticorupție, and Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 325(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 2 and 4 of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law (1) to be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a decision by a body outside the judiciary — the Curtea Constituțională a României (Constitutional Court of Romania) — which provides generally for the re-examination of every corruption case that was decided by the Criminal Chamber of the supreme court ruling at first instance within a given period (2003 to January 2019) and that is currently under appeal?










2.


Are Article 2 and [Article] 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union and [the second paragraph of] Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a body outside the judiciary from finding that the composition of panels hearing cases within a chamber of the supreme court is unlawful, contrary to the interpretation supported by the consistent and unanimous organisational and judicial practices of that court?










3.


Is the primacy of EU law to be interpreted as permitting a national court to disapply a decision of the constitutional court which has been handed down in a case concerning a constitutional dispute and is binding under national law?










4.


May the expression ‘previously established by law’ contained in [the second paragraph of] Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as including the formal designation of specialised panels distinct from the specialisation of the judges of which those panels are composed?






(1)  OJ 2017 L 198, p. 29.
Case C-666/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Legal protection of computer programs — Directive 2009/24/EC — Software licence agreement — Unauthorised modification of the source code of a computer program by a licensee in breach of the licence agreement — Action for infringement brought by the author of the program against the licensee — Nature of the applicable liability regime)
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: computer piracy, intellectual property, liability, software








C_2020061EN.01001502.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/15






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS
(Case C-666/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Legal protection of computer programs - Directive 2009/24/EC - Software licence agreement - Unauthorised modification of the source code of a computer program by a licensee in breach of the licence agreement - Action for infringement brought by the author of the program against the licensee - Nature of the applicable liability regime)
(2020/C 61/18)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IT Development SAS

Defendant: Free Mobile SAS

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the breach of a clause in a licence agreement for a computer program relating to the intellectual property rights of the owner of the copyright of that program falls within the concept of ‘infringement of intellectual property rights’, within the meaning of Directive 2004/48, and that, therefore, that owner must be able to benefit from the guarantees provided for by that directive, regardless of the liability regime applicable under national law.


(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Case T-858/19: Action brought on 18 December 2019 — easyCosmetic Swiss v EUIPO — U.W.I. Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations (easycosmetic)
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, market research, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020045EN.01009601.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 45/96






Action brought on 18 December 2019 — easyCosmetic Swiss v EUIPO — U.W.I. Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations (easycosmetic)
(Case T-858/19)
(2020/C 45/82)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: easyCosmetic Swiss GmbH (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Terheggen und S.E. Sullivan, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: U.W.I. Unternehmensberatungs- und Wirtschaftsinformations GmbH (Bad Nauheim, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark easycosmetic — EU trade mark No 13 801 675

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 973/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-862/19: Action brought on 18 December 2019 — Brasserie St Avold v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020061EN.01005101.xml










24.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 61/51






Action brought on 18 December 2019 — Brasserie St Avold v EUIPO (Shape of a bottle)
(Case T-862/19)
(2020/C 61/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Brasserie St Avold (Saint-Avold, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of a tridimensional sign (Shape of a bottle) — Application for registration No 1 408 065

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2019 in Case R 466/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Board of Appeal for Administrative Matters dated 18 December 2019 in the case Adpublisher AG v K (Case E-12/19) 2020/C 110/09
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, appeal to an administrative authority, data protection, data-processing law, disclosure of information, legal expenses, natural person, personal data, protection of privacy, supervisory body








C_2020110EN.01001001.xml










2.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/10






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Board of Appeal for Administrative Matters dated 18 December 2019 in the case Adpublisher AG v K
(Case E-12/19)
(2020/C 110/09)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 18 December 2019 from the Board of Appeal for Administrative Matters (Beschwerdekommission für Verwaltungsangelegenheiten), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 December 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case Adpublisher AG v K on the following questions:






1.


Does it follow from Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR) or from another provision of EEA law that an adversarial general procedure to hear a complaint may be carried out under the GDPR without disclosing the name and address of the complainant in the complaint procedure?
If the answer to the question is in the affirmative: Is it necessary in this case that a legitimate reason for the anonymisation is at least prima facie established or are no reasons required for the anonymisation?










2.


Must a Member State ensure in its national procedural law that in a procedure to hear a complaint in accordance with Article 77 of the GDPR all further national appellate bodies are free of charge for the data subject and that the data subject may also not be ordered to reimburse the costs?










3.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative and Question 2 is answered in the negative, in other words, an adversarial general procedure to hear a complaint may be carried out under the GDPR without identifying the name and address of the complainant in the complaint procedure and national procedural law is not required to ensure that in a procedure to hear a complaint in accordance with Article 77 of the GDPR all further national appellate bodies are free of charge for the data subject, the question arises how a decision resulting from a complaint procedure and ordering the data subject – who remains, however, anonymous –can be effected to reimburse the costs?
Special Report No 9/2019
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU aid, Morocco, association agreement (EU), development aid, economic development, financial aid, health care, human rights, social development, sustainable development








C_2019425EN.01000401.xml










18.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 425/4






Special Report No 9/2019

‘EU support to Morocco — Limited results so far’

(2019/C 425/04)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 9/2019 ‘EU support to Morocco — Limited results so far’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Public Procurement Complaints Committee dated 18 December 2019 in the case of Hraðbraut ehf. v mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf. (Case E-13/19) 2020/C 110/10
Date: 2019-12-18
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, educational institution, financial aid, public procurement, secondary education, services contract, tendering








C_2020110EN.01001101.xml










2.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/11






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by the Public Procurement Complaints Committee dated 18 December 2019 in the case of Hraðbraut ehf. v mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf.
(Case E-13/19)
(2020/C 110/10)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 18 December 2019 from the Public Procurement Complaints Committee (kærunefnd útboðsmála), which was received at the Court Registry on 23 December 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Hraðbraut ehf. v mennta- og menningarmálaráðuneytið, Verzlunarskóli Íslands ses., Tækniskólinn ehf., and Menntaskóli Borgarfjarðar ehf. on the following questions:






1.


Is a contract into which a ministry enters with an entity that is licensed to operate as an upper secondary school, by which the entity in question undertakes to provide pupils and teachers with services and facilities that are customary at the upper secondary level, and in which allowance is made for financial contributions, to be considered as a public service contract in the sense of Directive 2014/24/EU (cf. in particular, Article 2(9))?










2.


Do services of the type described in Question 1 constitute social services or other specific services in the sense of Article 74 of Directive 2014/24/EU, and if so, should the provisions of Chapter I of Title III of the Directive apply regarding the procurement regime?










3.


Is it of significance, for the resolution of Questions 1 and 2, whether consideration for the services in question is determined in budget legislation from the Icelandic Parliament or in accordance with a decision by a minister on the basis of applicable domestic law and rules?










4.


Is the Minister of Education, Science and Culture obliged to apply a procurement procedure based on Directive 2014/24/EU regarding the procurement of services covering the operation of schools and instruction at upper secondary level in return for financial contributions?