do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-38/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (Spain) lodged on 27 January 2020 — ZP v Delegación del Gobierno en Melilla
Date: 2020-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, Spain, administrative sanction, defence policy, foreign national, national law, ownership








C_2020137EN.01003601.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (Spain) lodged on 27 January 2020 — ZP v Delegación del Gobierno en Melilla
(Case C-38/20)
(2020/C 137/49)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía, Ceuta y Melilla

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ZP

Defendant: Delegación del Gobierno en Melilla

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 18, 49, 63 and 65 TFEU to be construed as precluding national legislation such as that made up of Articles 18, 4 and 29 of Law 8/1975 of 12 March 1975 on areas and facilities of national defence interest, and Article 37 of Royal Decree 689/1978 of 10 February 1978 laying down the rules governing areas and facilities of national defence interest, which implements Law 8/1975 of 12 March 1975 on areas and facilities of national defence interest, in so far as it imposes serious restrictions on the exercise of the right to own property by foreign nationals, including the requirement to obtain military authorisation in order to exercise that right in full, failure to comply with which attracts the imposition of an administrative penalty from the application of which Spanish nationals are excluded in any circumstances, in the case where such restrictions are imposed on third-country nationals engaging in activities subject to limitations in conjunction with nationals of the European Union?










2.


If the answer to the foregoing question is in the affirmative, are Articles 18, 49, 63 and 65 TFEU to be construed as precluding national legislation such as that made up of Articles 18, 4 and 29 of Law 8/1975 of 12 March 1975 on areas and facilities of national defence interest, and Article 37 of Royal Decree 689/1978 of 10 February 1978 laying down the rules governing areas and facilities of national defence interest, which implements Law 8/1975 of 12 March 1975 on areas and facilities of national defence interest, in so far as it imposes serious restrictions on the exercise of the right to own property by foreign nationals, including the requirement to obtain military authorisation in order to exercise that right in full, failure to comply with which attracts the imposition of an administrative penalty from the application of which Spanish nationals are excluded in any circumstances, if such restrictions are justified on overriding reasons in the general interest relating to national defence, regard being had exclusively to the significance of the public interest in relation to national defence that lies in safeguarding enclaves of particular strategic importance?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9640 — BCP/CD&R Fund X/BrandSafway) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 37/01
Date: 2020-01-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2020037EN.01000101.xml










4.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9640 — BCP/CD&R Fund X/BrandSafway)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 37/01)
On 27 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 32020M9640. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-45/20: Action brought on 27 January 2020 – KRBL v EUIPO – P.K. Overseas (INDIA SALAM Pure Basmati Rice)
Date: 2020-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, rice, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01006002.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/60






Action brought on 27 January 2020 – KRBL v EUIPO – P.K. Overseas (INDIA SALAM Pure Basmati Rice)
(Case T-45/20)
(2020/C 77/82)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KRBL Ltd (Delhi, India) (represented by: P. Strickland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: P.K. Overseas Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark INDIA SALAM Pure Basmati Rice with the colour indications light brown, sepia and white yellow – International registration designating the European Union No 1 126 413

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2019 in Case R 766/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


allow the appeal and refuse the application;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 13 February 2019 relating to Opposition Proceedings No B 2 201 385;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.





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(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-44/20: Action brought on 27 January 2020 — Chanel v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves)
Date: 2020-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, electronic device, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2020103EN.01003202.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/32






Action brought on 27 January 2020 — Chanel v EUIPO — Huawei Technologies (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves)
(Case T-44/20)
(2020/C 103/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Chanel (Neuilly sur-Seine, France) (represented by: J. Passa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

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 (Representation of a circle containing two interlaced curves) — Application for registration No 17 248 642

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2019 in Case R 1041/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it considered that the signs at issue, in the position in which they appear in the application for registration, are not similar;










—


annul the decision in so far as it refused as a matter of principle to compare those signs where the sign, covered by the application for registration at issue, was rotated 90 degrees compared to the direction in which it appeared in the application for registration;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council.
Case T-43/20: Action brought on 27 January 2020 — AV and AW v Parliament
Date: 2020-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, disciplinary proceedings, lawyer, pay scale, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2020087EN.01002501.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/25






Action brought on 27 January 2020 — AV and AW v Parliament
(Case T-43/20)
(2020/C 87/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: AV and AW (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;










—


annul the contested decisions and remind the defendant, if necessary, of its obligation to draw all the consequences in respect of the applicants, pursuant to Article 266 TFEU, in particular in terms of remuneration and promotion;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action against the decisions of 21 June 2019 by which the Parliament imposed on them a disciplinary penalty of downgrading by 4 grades and by 2 grades, respectively, the applicants put forward five pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging infringement of the right to be heard, on the ground that the applicants were not heard by the competent authority.










2.


Second plea, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of good administration.










3.


Third plea, alleging irregularities in the preparatory measures for the contested decisions. The applicants rely in that regard on the irregularity of the investigation report drawn up by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the opinion of the Disciplinary Board.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging infringement of Articles 4 and 16 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (the ‘Staff Regulations’) and the principle of conferral of powers and the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States. The applicants submit that the Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority were required to verify the validity, in the light of Portuguese law, of the mandate of the lawyer at the hearing on 20 February 2018. They add that, in any event, once alerted to the fact that the mandate was invalid, the Disciplinary Board and the appointing authority should have drawn the necessary consequences for the disciplinary procedure, in particular as regards the applicants’ lack of acquiescence to the conduct complained of and the findings of OLAF and the investigators.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging infringement of Article 10 of the Annex to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the penalties were not proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct.
Case C-39/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 January 2020 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Jumbocarry Trading GmbH
Date: 2020-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, limitation of legal proceedings, principle of legal certainty








C_2020201EN.01000802.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 January 2020 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Jumbocarry Trading GmbH
(Case C-39/20)
(2020/C 201/13)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Defendant: Jumbocarry Trading GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Are Articles 103(3)(b) and 124(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1) applicable to a customs debt that was incurred before 1 May 2016 and whose period of limitation had not yet expired as of that date?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does the principle of legal certainty or the principle of legitimate expectations preclude that applicability?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 24 January 20202020/C 26/01
Date: 2020-01-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: commemoration, euro, issuing of currency








C_2020026EN.01000101.xml










27.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 26/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 January 2020
(2020/C 26/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1035 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,96 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4730 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84313 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5363 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0712 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9375 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,160 




HUF


Hungarian forint


336,01 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2565 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7799 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5539 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6127 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4491 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5770 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6684 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4910 




KRW


South Korean won


1 289,12 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8585 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6509 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4415 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 002,91 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4857 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,092 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,1692 




THB


Thai baht


33,723 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6084 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,7170 




INR


Indian rupee


78,6700 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9477 — STEAG/OYAK/SET) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 37/02
Date: 2020-01-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, merger control, pension fund








C_2020037EN.01000201.xml










4.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9477 — STEAG/OYAK/SET)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 37/02)
On 27 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 32020M9477. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-44/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 January 2020 — Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA) v PC, RE
Date: 2020-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, competition (EU), equal treatment, full-time employment, professional qualifications, recruitment, seniority, temporary employment








C_2020161EN.01002901.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 January 2020 — Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA) v PC, RE
(Case C-44/20)
(2020/C 161/38)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Autorità di Regolazione per Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA)

Defendants: PC, RE

Questions referred







(a)


Must clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 and annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (1) be construed as requiring that the periods of service carried out by a fixed-term worker employed by the Authority, in duties which coincide with those of a permanent employee in the corresponding category of that authority, be taken into account to determine his or her length of service, even where his or her subsequent permanent recruitment takes place further to an open competition, and notwithstanding the specific features of the open competition procedure, which, for the reasons already stated, leads to a complete novation of the relationship and, with an interruption acknowledged by the participant in the open competition procedure, to a new relationship characterised by official recruitment, special obligations and the special features of greater permanency?










(b)


If the answer to question (a) above is in the affirmative, must the past length of service be recognised in full, or are there objective grounds to differentiate the recognition criteria as regards full recognition on the basis of the abovementioned special features?










(c)


If the answer to question (b) above is in the negative, on the basis of which criteria must the length of service that is capable of being recognised be calculated in order for that length of service not to be discriminatory?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).