do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-31/20: Action brought on 20 January 2020 — West End Drinks v EUIPO — Pernod Ricard (The King of SOHO)
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020087EN.01002401.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/24






Action brought on 20 January 2020 — West End Drinks v EUIPO — Pernod Ricard (The King of SOHO)
(Case T-31/20)
(2020/C 87/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: West End Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor and C. Hall, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pernod Ricard SA (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark The King of SOHO in the colours golden, dark yellow, light yellow and cream — Application for registration No 11 539 103

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 October 2019 in Case R 1543/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 42(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Special Report No 01/2020 EU action on Ecodesign and Energy Labelling: important contribution to greater energy efficiency reduced by significant delays and non-compliance2020/C 18/02
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU environmental policy, consumer information, eco-label, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, exchange of information, labelling, market supervision








C_2020018EN.01000201.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/2






Special Report No 01/2020
‘EU action on Ecodesign and Energy Labelling: important contribution to greater energy efficiency reduced by significant delays and non-compliance’
(2020/C 18/02)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 01/2020 ‘EU action on Ecodesign and Energy Labelling: important contribution to greater energy efficiency reduced by significant delays and non-compliance’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures2020/C 18/05
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: United States, anti-dumping duty, biofuel, import (EU), originating product








C_2020018EN.01002001.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/20






Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures
(2020/C 18/05)
1.   As provided for in Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the anti-dumping measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.
2.   Procedure

Union producers may lodge a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.
3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit H-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.
4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.









Product


Country(ies) of origin or exportation


Measures


Reference


Date of expiry (3)





Biodiesel


The United States of America


Anti-dumping duty


Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1518 of 14 September 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in the United States of America following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009
(OJ L 239, 15.9.2015, p. 69).


16.9.2020






(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight of the day mentioned in this column.
Case C-26/20 P: Appeal brought on 20 January 2020 by Rezon OOD against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2019 in Case T-101/19, Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet access provider, banking, broadcasting, financial services, insurance, registered trade mark, sponsorship, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2020255EN.01000803.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/8






Appeal brought on 20 January 2020 by Rezon OOD against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 November 2019 in Case T-101/19, Rezon v EUIPO (imot.bg)
(Case C-26/20 P)
(2020/C 255/11)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Appellant: Rezon EOOD (represented by: M. Yordanova-Harizanova, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
By order of 21 April 2020, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) declared the present appeal manifestly inadmissible.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9479 — PSA/Saft/ACC) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 18/06
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity storage device, merger control, motor vehicle industry, vehicle parts








C_2020018EN.01002101.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 18/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9479 — PSA/Saft/ACC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 18/06)

1.   
On 14 January 2020, 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:






—


Peugeot SA (‘PSA’, France), ultimately controled by Groupe PSA (France),










—


Saft Groupe S.A. (‘Saft’, France), utlimately controlled by Total S.A. (France),










—


Automotive Cells Company (‘ACC’, France), a newly created joint venture.




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


PSA is mainly an original equipment manufacturer and dealer of motor vehicles, under the brands Peugeot, Citroën, Opel, Vauxhall and DS,










—


Saft is active in the manufacture and supply of industrial batteries,










—


ACC will be active in the development, manufacture and supply of battery cells and modules for industrial and automotive applications.






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.



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.9479 — PSA/Saft/ACC
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’).
Council Decision (EU) 2020/101 of 20 January 2020 appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Poland of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, Poland, appointment of members








L_2020020EN.01000101.xml










24.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 20/1








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/101
of 20 January 2020
         
appointing a member, proposed by the Republic of Poland of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Polish Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 26 January 2015, 5 February 2015 and 23 June 2015, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2015/116 (1), (EU) 2015/190 (2) and (EU) 2015/994 (3) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020.












(2)


A member seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Marek OLSZEWSKI,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed as a member to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2020:






—


Mr Krzysztof IWANIUK, Wójt Gminy Terespol.







Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 20 January 2020.


For the Council


The President

J. BORRELL FONTELLES
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/116 of 26 January 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 20, 27.1.2015, p. 42).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/190 of 5 February 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 31, 7.2.2015, p. 25).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/994 of 23 June 2015 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2015 to 25 January 2020 (OJ L 159, 25.6.2015, p. 70).
Case C-202/19 P: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2020 — Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd, Airport Marketing Services Ltd v European Commission
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Poitou-Charentes, State aid, airport, control of State aid, low cost airline, profitability, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020313EN.01002001.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/20






Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2020 — Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd, Airport Marketing Services Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-202/19 P) (1)

(2020/C 313/26)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case T-35/20: Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Monster Energy v EUIPO – Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Device of a claw-like scratch)
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020068EN.01007001.xml










2.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 68/70






Action brought on 20 January 2020 – Monster Energy v EUIPO – Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Device of a claw-like scratch)
(Case T-35/20)
(2020/C 68/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanjing aisiyou Clothing Co. Ltd (Nanjing City, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark representing a device of a claw-like scratch – Application for registration No 17 634 478

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2019 in Case R 1104/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 March 2019 in Opposition B 3050458;










—


reject the opposed mark for the contested goods and services, being all goods and services covered by the application;










—


order the defendant to bear its own costs of the proceedings and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-25/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (Slovenia) lodged on 20 January 2020 — ALPINE Bau GmbH, Salzburg —Celje branch — in liquidation
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2020103EN.01001302.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (Slovenia) lodged on 20 January 2020 — ALPINE Bau GmbH, Salzburg —Celje branch — in liquidation
(Case C-25/20)
(2020/C 103/20)
Language of the case: Slovenian

Referring court

Višje sodišče v Ljubljani

Party to the main proceedings


Debtor: ALPINE Bau GmbH, Salzburg — Celje branch — in liquidation

Question referred

Is Article 32(2) of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the rules on the time limits for lodging creditors’ claims, and the consequences of lodging claims out of time under the law of the State in which the secondary proceedings are being conducted, apply to the lodgement of claims in secondary proceedings by the liquidator in the main insolvency proceedings?


(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).
Case C-203/19 P: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2020 — Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd, Airport Marketing Services Ltd v European Commission
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Aquitaine, France, State aid, airport, control of State aid, low cost airline, profitability, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020313EN.01002002.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/20






Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2020 — Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd, Airport Marketing Services Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-203/19 P) (1)

(2020/C 313/27)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9693 — Liberty/Aleris Divestment Business) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 44/03
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aluminium, economic concentration, flat product, iron and steel industry, merger control, metal waste, waste recycling








C_2020044EN.01000301.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9693 — Liberty/Aleris Divestment Business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 44/03)
On 20 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 32020M9693. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-204/19 P: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2020 — Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd, Airport Marketing Services Ltd v European Commission, Council of the European Union
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, Languedoc-Roussillon, State aid, airport, control of State aid, low cost airline, profitability, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020313EN.01002003.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/20






Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 20 January 2020 — Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd, Airport Marketing Services Ltd v European Commission, Council of the European Union
(Case C-204/19 P) (1)

(2020/C 313/28)
Language of the case: English
The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case T-34/20: Action brought on 20 January 2020 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission
Date: 2020-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Germany, State aid, control of State aid, software, tax exemption, tax relief, university








C_2020077EN.01005801.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/58






Action brought on 20 January 2020 — Datenlotsen Informationssysteme v Commission
(Case T-34/20)
(2020/C 77/79)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Datenlotsen Informationssysteme GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Lübbig, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 September 2019 on the measure SA.34402 — 2015/C (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Germany for Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (Commission document C(2019) 6836 final);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in applying a test to determine whether the activities of Hochschul-Informations-System GmbH (‘HIS’) are economic in nature that is incompatible with the case-law, since the Commission failed to have regard to the content of the ‘inseparability’ criterion and the autonomous significance of the ‘connection’ criterion.










2.


Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in characterising HIS’ activities for German public universities as non-economic.










3.


Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in failing to differentiate between HIS’ various fields of activity.










4.


Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that a market existed in 1976.










5.


Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU in failing to state sufficient reasons for the applicability of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 to situations not involving liberalisation.










6.


Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as ‘existing aid’ on the basis that the measures underwent significant change.










7.


Infringement of Article 108(3) TFEU and Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 2015/1589 in classifying the direct funding as an ‘aid scheme’, since there was in fact a series of individual aid awards approved annually.










8.


Infringement of the right to have one’s case heard within a reasonable period of time as part of the right to ‘good administration’ under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).