do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-524/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public health — Information and consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Implementing Decision 2013/63/EU — Nutritional and health claims made on foods — Article 10(3) — Reference to general, non-specific benefits — Concept of ‘accompanying’ a specific health claim — Obligation to produce scientific evidence — Scope)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, foodstuff, labelling, product designation, public health, scientific research








C_2020137EN.01001502.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/15






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG v Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-524/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public health - Information and consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Implementing Decision 2013/63/EU - Nutritional and health claims made on foods - Article 10(3) - Reference to general, non-specific benefits - Concept of ‘accompanying’ a specific health claim - Obligation to produce scientific evidence - Scope)
(2020/C 137/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dr. Willmar Schwabe GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Queisser Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 107/2008 of 15 January 2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement which it lays down that any reference to general, non-specific benefits of the nutrient or food must be accompanied by a specific health claim included in the lists provided for in Articles 13 or 14 of that regulation, is not satisfied where the packaging of a food supplement contains a reference to general, non-specific health benefits of a nutrient or food on the front of the packaging, whereas the specific health claim intended to accompany it appears only on the back of that packaging and there is no clear reference, such as an asterisk, between the two;










2.


Article 10(3) of Regulation No 1924/2006 as amended by Regulation No 107/2008 must be interpreted as meaning that references to general, non-specific benefits of a nutrient or food for overall good health or health-related well-being must be justified by scientific evidence within the meaning of Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1) of that regulation. To that end, it suffices for such references to be accompanied by specific health claims included in the lists provided for in Article 13 or Article 14 of that regulation.






(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9503 — Gardner Denver/Ingersoll Industrials) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 65/01
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical equipment, handling, hydraulic machinery, industrial production, merger control, pump








C_2020065EN.01000101.xml










28.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9503 — Gardner Denver/Ingersoll Industrials)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 65/01)
On 30 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 32020M9503. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-559/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — Julius Sämann v EUIPO — Maharishi Vedic University (Representation of a tree) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a tree — Earlier EU and international figurative marks representing an ‘arbre magique’ (magic tree) — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, essential oil, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01004801.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/48






Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — Julius Sämann v EUIPO — Maharishi Vedic University (Representation of a tree)
(Case T-559/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a tree - Earlier EU and international figurative marks representing an ‘arbre magique’ (magic tree) - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 77/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Julius Sämann Ltd (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Parrish, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Maharishi Vedic University Ltd (Mgarr, Malta) (represented by: L. Prehn, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2019 (Case R 1743/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Julius Sämann and Maharishi Vedic University.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Julius Sämann Ltd to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Case C-52/20 P: Appeal brought on 30 January 2020 by K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2019 in Case T-527/18, K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, industrial research, provision of services, registered trade mark, scientific research, software, trade-mark law








C_2020247EN.01000301.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/3






Appeal brought on 30 January 2020 by K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2019 in Case T-527/18, K.A. Schmersal Holding v EUIPO — Tecnium (tec.nicum)
(Case C-52/20 P)
(2020/C 247/03)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Haudan, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 28 May 2020 the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal is not allowed to proceed and that K.A. Schmersal Holding GmbH & Co. KG shall bear its own costs.
Case T-336/19: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — BZ v Commission (Civil service — Contract staff — Dismissal for obviously inadequate work — Proportionality — Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Liability)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, dismissal, indemnification, principle of proportionality, probationary period, servant (EU), work productivity








C_2020077EN.01004702.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/47






Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — BZ v Commission
(Case T-336/19) (1)

(Civil service - Contract staff - Dismissal for obviously inadequate work - Proportionality - Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Liability)
(2020/C 77/67)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: BZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2018 to dismiss the applicant in response to a report on the probationary period before the end of that period and, second, payment of compensation for the material or non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 25 July 2018 to dismiss BZ;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders the Commission to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Case C-395/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement of supplies, works or services — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 18(2) — Article 57(4) — Optional grounds for exclusion — Ground for exclusion of a subcontractor mentioned in the economic operator’s tender — Subcontractor’s failure to comply with environmental, social and labour law obligations — National legislation providing for automatic exclusion of the economic operator for such a failure)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, public procurement, services contract, subcontracting, supplies contract, works contract








C_2020137EN.01001101.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/11






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA v Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
(Case C-395/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement of supplies, works or services - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 18(2) - Article 57(4) - Optional grounds for exclusion - Ground for exclusion of a subcontractor mentioned in the economic operator’s tender - Subcontractor’s failure to comply with environmental, social and labour law obligations - National legislation providing for automatic exclusion of the economic operator for such a failure)
(2020/C 137/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tim SpA — Direzione e coordinamento Vivendi SA

Defendant: Consip SpA, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Intervener: E-VIA SpA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 57(4)(a) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC does not preclude national legislation under which the contracting authority has the option, or even the obligation, to exclude the economic operator who submitted the tender from participation in the contract award procedure where the ground for exclusion referred to in that provision is established in respect of one of the subcontractors mentioned in that operator’s tender. However, that provision, read in conjunction with Article 57(6) of that directive, and the principle of proportionality preclude national legislation providing for the automatic nature of such exclusion.


(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
European Parliament decision of 30 January 2020 on the proposal for the appointment of the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority (N9-0003/2020 — C9-0006/2020 — 2020/0901(NLE))
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: European Banking Authority, appointment of members, managing director








C_2021331EN.01004601.xml










17.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 331/46






P9_TA(2020)0023
Appointment of the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority
European Parliament decision of 30 January 2020 on the proposal for the appointment of the Executive Director of the European Banking Authority (N9-0003/2020 — C9-0006/2020 — 2020/0901(NLE))
(Approval)
(2021/C 331/08)

The European Parliament,






—


having regard to the proposal of the Board of Supervisors of the European Banking Authority of 14 January 2020 (C9-0006/2020),










—


having regard to Article 51(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 establishing a European Supervisory Authority (European Banking Authority), amending Decision No 716/2009/EC and repealing Commission Decision 2009/78/EC (1),










—


having regard to its resolution of 14 March 2019 on gender balance in EU economic and monetary affairs nominations (2),










—


having regard to its resolution of 16 January 2020 on institutions and bodies of the Economic and Monetary Union: preventing post-public employment conflicts of interest (3),










—


having regard to Rule 131 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee of Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0008/2020),










A.


whereas the current Executive Director of the European Banking Authority has announced his resignation from the post with effect from 31 January 2020;










B.


whereas, on 14 January 2020, the Board of Supervisors of the European Banking Authority, following an open selection procedure, proposed to appoint Gerry Cross as Executive Director for a term of office of five years, in accordance with Article 51(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010;










C.


whereas, on 22 January 2020, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs held a hearing with Gerry Cross, at which he made an opening statement and then responded to questions from the members of the Committee;












1.


Declines to approve the appointment of Gerry Cross as Executive Director of the European Banking Authority, and asks for the proposal to be withdrawn and for a new one to be submitted to Parliament;












2.


Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council, the Commission, the European Banking Authority and the governments of the Member States.






(1)  OJ L 331, 15.12.2010, p. 12.

(2)  Texts adopted, P8_TA(2019)0211.

(3)  Texts adopted, P9_TA(2020)0017.
Case T-292/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Portugal — Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Article 54 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Definition of national courts)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU aid, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2020077EN.01004301.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/43






Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-292/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Article 54 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Definition of national courts)
(2020/C 77/61)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, P. Estêvão, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Barros da Costa, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rechena and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/304 of 27 February 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018 L 59, p. 3), in that it excludes from EU financing an amount of EUR 1 052 101,05 relating to expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Case T-293/18: Order of the General Court of 30 January 2020 –Latvia v Commission (Action for annulment — Common fisheries policy — Treaty of Paris on the archipelago of Spitsbergen (Norway) — Fishing opportunities for snow crab around the area of Svalbard (Norway) — Regulation (EU) 2017/127 — EU registered vessels authorised to fish — Detention of a Latvian vessel — Article 265 TFEU — Invitation to act — Adoption of a position by the Commission — Measure not producing binding legal effects — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Arctic Ocean, EU Member State, Norway, archipelago, catch area, equal treatment, fishing regulations, fishing vessel, international agreement, sea fishing








C_2020095EN.01003102.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/31






Order of the General Court of 30 January 2020 –Latvia v Commission
(Case T-293/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Treaty of Paris on the archipelago of Spitsbergen (Norway) - Fishing opportunities for snow crab around the area of Svalbard (Norway) - Regulation (EU) 2017/127 - EU registered vessels authorised to fish - Detention of a Latvian vessel - Article 265 TFEU - Invitation to act - Adoption of a position by the Commission - Measure not producing binding legal effects - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 95/40)
Language of the case: Latvian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: V. Soņeca, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, E. Paasivirta, I. Naglis and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s letter of 12 March 2018 by which that institution adopted its position on the invitation to act which the Republic of Latvia had addressed to it, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU, by letter of 22 December 2017 and which was intended, in essence, to require the Commission to adopt measures relating to the defence of the fishing rights and European Union interests in the Svalbard fishing area (Norway) and, second, to order the Commission to adopt a position in that regard which is not the source of legal effects unfavourable to the Republic of Latvia.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible;










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene of the Kingdom of Spain;










3.


The Republic of Latvia shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene;










4.


The Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Latvia and the Commission shall each bear their own costs relating to the application for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Amendments to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice 2020/C 403/05
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway
Subjects: EFTA Court, EFTA countries, United Kingdom, multilateral agreement, protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement, withdrawal from the EU








C_2020403EN.01001001.xml










26.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 403/10






Amendments to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice
(2020/C 403/05)
The Agreement amending the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, and adding Protocol 9 thereto, signed in Brussels on 30 January 2020 entered into force on 25 June 2020.
This Agreement and the updated consolidated version of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice have now been published on the EFTA Secretariat’s website.
They can be found through the following links:
http://www.efta.int/Agreement-Annexes-and-Protocols-2477
and
http://www.efta.int/legal-texts/the-surveillance-and-court-agreement/amendments-protocol-9