do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-26/20: Action brought on 16 January 2020 – Forex Bank v EUIPO – Coino UK (FOREX)
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic money, exchange transaction, payment system, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020068EN.01006801.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/68






Action brought on 16 January 2020 – Forex Bank v EUIPO – Coino UK (FOREX)
(Case T-26/20)
(2020/C 68/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Forex Bank AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: A. Jute, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coino UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark FOREX – European Union trade mark No 4 871 836

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 in Case R 2460/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the Cancellation Division’s decision;










—


order that the European Union trade mark No 4 871 836 remains in force;










—


order the EUIPO to bear the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, the Boards of Appeal, as well as the General Court with an amount to be specified later.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9615 — Glory/Grenke Bank/Cash Payment Solutions) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 46/04
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: automatic vending machine, banking, economic concentration, financial services, merger control, payment








C_2020046EN.01000401.xml










11.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 46/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9615 — Glory/Grenke Bank/Cash Payment Solutions)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 46/04)
On 16 January 2020, 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 32020M9615. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-257/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2020 — Iberpotash v Commission (State aid — Mining sector — Measure consisting (i) in the reduction of financial guarantees for the restoration of mining sites and (ii) in State investment for the restoration of mining sites ensuring a higher level of environmental protection — Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of ‘aid’ — Advantage — Transfer of State resources — Selective nature — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Calculation of the amount of the aid)
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Spain, control of State aid, mining industry, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid








C_2020068EN.01004201.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/42






Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2020 — Iberpotash v Commission
(Case T-257/18) (1)

(State aid - Mining sector - Measure consisting (i) in the reduction of financial guarantees for the restoration of mining sites and (ii) in State investment for the restoration of mining sites ensuring a higher level of environmental protection - Decision declaring aid partly incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of ‘aid’ - Advantage - Transfer of State resources - Selective nature - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Calculation of the amount of the aid)
(2020/C 68/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Iberpotash, SA (Súria, Spain) (represented by: N. Niejahr and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2018/118 of 31 August 2017 on State aid SA.35818 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2012/CP) implemented by Spain for Iberpotash (OJ 2018 L 28, p. 25).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Iberpotash, SA to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Information concerning the entry into force of Agreement between the European Community and the government of Malaysia on certain aspects of air services
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Malaysia, agreement (EU), air transport








L_2020012EN.01000101.xml










16.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 12/1







Information concerning the entry into force of Agreement between the European Community and the government of Malaysia on certain aspects of air services

The Agreement between the European Community and the government of Malaysia on certain aspects of air services, signed in Brussels on 22 March 2007, entered into force on 3 April 2009, in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 3 April 2009.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Morocco, agreement (EU), air transport








L_2020012EN.01000401.xml










16.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 12/4







Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services

The Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco on certain aspects of air services, signed in Brussels on 12 December 2006, entered into force on 31 March 2010, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 31 March 2010.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Mongolia on certain aspects of air services
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Mongolia, agreement (EU), air transport








L_2020012EN.01000301.xml










16.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 12/3







Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Mongolia on certain aspects of air services

The Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Mongolia on certain aspects of air services, signed in Ulan Bator on 3 April 2009, entered into force on 2 December 2009, in accordance with Article 7 of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 2 December 2009.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 15 January 20202020/C 15/04
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020015EN.01000401.xml










16.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

15 January 2020
(2020/C 15/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1142 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,43 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4727 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85683 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5590 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0751 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8820 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,144 




HUF


Hungarian forint


332,94 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2265 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7803 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5580 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6188 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4565 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6591 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6905 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5011 




KRW


South Korean won


1 289,22 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0218 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6746 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4443 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 262,30 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5409 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,521 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,4386 




THB


Thai baht


33,693 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6350 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,9542 




INR


Indian rupee


78,8825 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-28/20: Action brought on 16 January 2020 — ID v EEAS
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, contract staff, damages, dismissal, probationary period, servant (EU), work productivity








C_2020095EN.01003701.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/37






Action brought on 16 January 2020 — ID v EEAS
(Case T-28/20)
(2020/C 95/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ID (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare her application admissible;










—


annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 449 397,05, in compensation for the material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made;










—


order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 20 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and,










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 84 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (CEOS):






—


on the elements in relation to which a finding of inadequacy must be made to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period;










—


on the level of inadequacy that must be met to justify dismissal before the end of the probationary period.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment:






—


on the failure to state adequate reasons and manifest error of assessment;










—


on the assessment of the facts capable of supporting a finding of obvious inadequacy.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on certain aspects of air services
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Moldova, agreement (EU), air transport








L_2020012EN.01000201.xml










16.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 12/2







Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on certain aspects of air services

The Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Moldova on certain aspects of air services, signed in Luxembourg on 11 April 2006, entered into force on 25 February 2008, in accordance with Article 8(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 25 February 2008.
Case C-368/19: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Lindam Srl v Roma Capitale, Regione Lazio, Vodafone Italia SpA, Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Approximation of laws — Electronic communications networks and services — Restrictions on the installation of mobile phone base transceiver stations established by local authorities — Insufficient details concerning the reasons why an answer to the question referred is necessary for the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, freedom to provide services, regulation of telecommunications, telecommunications equipment, telecommunications industry








C_2020313EN.01000602.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/6






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Lindam Srl v Roma Capitale, Regione Lazio, Vodafone Italia SpA, Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA
(Case C-368/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Approximation of laws - Electronic communications networks and services - Restrictions on the installation of mobile phone base transceiver stations established by local authorities - Insufficient details concerning the reasons why an answer to the question referred is necessary for the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 313/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Vodafone Italia SpA, Lindam Srl

Respondents: Roma Capitale, Regione Lazio, Vodafone Italia SpA, Telecom Italia SpA, Wind Tre SpA, Wind Telecomunicazioni SpA

Interveners: Regione Lazio, Wind Tre SpA, Telecom Italia SpA, Ente Suore Francescane Missionarie del Cuore Immacolato di Maria and Others, Agenzia Regionale Protezione Ambiente (ARPA), Congregazione delle Religiose di Gesù e Maria

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy), by decision of 2 February 2018, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Case C-18/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 January 2020 — XY
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, appeal, asylum seeker, foreign national, proof, right of asylum








C_2020161EN.01002402.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 16 January 2020 — XY
(Case C-18/20)
(2020/C 161/32)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XY

Defendant: Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl

Questions referred







1.


Do the phrases ‘new elements or findings’ that ‘have arisen or have been presented by the applicant’ in Article 40(2) and 40(3) of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (recast) (1) (‘the Procedures Directive’) also cover circumstances that already existed before the previous asylum procedure was definitively concluded?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:










2.


In a case in which new facts or evidence come to light which could not have been relied on in the earlier procedure through no fault of the foreign national, is it sufficient that an asylum applicant is able to request the re-opening of a previous procedure which has been definitively concluded?










3.


If the applicant is at fault for not having relied in the previous asylum procedure upon the newly invoked grounds, is the authority allowed to deny substantive examination of a subsequent application on the basis of a national standard laying down a principle which is generally applicable in the administrative procedure, even though, in the absence of the adoption of special standards, the Member State has not correctly transposed Article 40(2) and 40(3) of the Procedures Directive and, as a consequence, has also not made express use of the possibility granted by Article 40(4) of the Procedures Directive to provide for an exception from substantive examination of the subsequent application?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60.
Case T-128/19: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2020 — Hemp Foods Australia v EUIPO — Cabrejos (Sativa) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — No recording of the change in ownership in the international register — No locus standi — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, food additive, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01005002.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/50






Order of the General Court of 16 January 2020 — Hemp Foods Australia v EUIPO — Cabrejos (Sativa)
(Case T-128/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - No recording of the change in ownership in the international register - No locus standi - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 77/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hemp Foods Australia Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: M. Holah and P. Brownlow, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: César Raúl Dávila Cabrejos (Lima, Peru) (represented by: L. Estropá Navarro, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 (Case R 1041/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Cabrejos and Raw With Life Pty Ltd as Trustee for Benhaim Trading Trust.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



Hemp Foods Australia Pty Ltd shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9683 — Colony Capital/PSP/Etix) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 98/05
Date: 2020-01-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: computer centre, data processing, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services, real estate business








C_2020098EN.01000501.xml










25.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9683 — Colony Capital/PSP/Etix)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 98/05)
On 16 January 2020, 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 32020M9683. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.