do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-394/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Napoli — Italy) — I.G.I. Srl v Maria Grazia Cicenia and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 82/891/EEC — Articles 12 and 19 — Division of limited liability companies — Protection of the interests of the creditors of the company being divided — Nullity of the division — Actio pauliana)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, demerger, interest, public limited company








C_2020137EN.01001002.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/10






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d’appello di Napoli — Italy) — I.G.I. Srl v Maria Grazia Cicenia and Others
(Case C-394/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 82/891/EEC - Articles 12 and 19 - Division of limited liability companies - Protection of the interests of the creditors of the company being divided - Nullity of the division - Actio pauliana)
(2020/C 137/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte d’appello di Napoli

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: I.G.I. Srl

Respondents: Maria Grazia Cicenia, Mario Di Pierro, Salvatore de Vito, Antonio Raffaele

intervener: Costruzioni Ing. G. Iandolo Srl

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 12 of Sixth Council Directive 82/891/EEC of 17 December 1982 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty, concerning the division of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2007/63/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007, read in conjunction with Articles 21 and 22 of Directive 82/891, must be interpreted as not precluding the creditors of the company being divided whose credit interests antedate that division, who did not take advantage of the creditor protection tools provided for in the national legislation implementing that article, from bringing an actio pauliana after the division has been implemented, in order to obtain a declaration that the division in question has no effect against them and to bring enforcement or protective action in relation to the assets transferred to the newly formed company.










2.


Article 19 of Directive 82/891, as amended by Directive 2007/63, read in conjunction with Articles 21 and 22 of Directive 82/891, which lays down nullity rules for divisions, must be interpreted as not precluding the creditors of the company being divided from bringing, after the division has been implemented, an actio pauliana which does not affect the validity of that division but merely allows for that division to be rendered unenforceable against those creditors.






(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Public Holidays 20202020/C 31/03
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, public holiday








C_2020031EN.01000301.xml










30.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/3






Public Holidays 2020
(2020/C 31/03)






Belgique/België


1.1, 2.1, 13.4, 1.5, 8.5, 21.5, 1.6, 21.7, 2.11, 11.11, 25.12, 28.12, 29.12, 30.12, 31.12




България


1.1, 3.3, 19.4, 20.4, 6.5, 24.5, 25.5, 6.9, 7.9, 22.9, 24.12, 25.12




Česká republika


1.1, 10.4, 13.4, 1.5, 8.5, 5.7, 6.7, 28.9, 28.10, 17.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12.




Danmark


1.1, 9.4, 10.4, 12.4, 13.4, 8.5, 21.5, 31.5, 1.6, 25.12, 26.12




Deutschland


1.1, 10.4, 13.4, 1.5, 21.5, 1.6, 3.10, 25.12, 26.12




Eesti


1.1, 24.2, 10.4, 12.4, 1.5, 31.5, 23.6, 24.6, 20.8, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12




Éire/Ireland


1.1, 17.3, 13.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 26.10, 25.12, 26.12




Ελλάδα


1.1, 6.1, 2.3, 25.3, 17.4, 20.4, 1.5, 8.6, 15.8, 28.10, 25.12, 26.12




España


1.1, 6.1, 10.4, 1.5, 15.8, 12.10, 8.12, 25.12




France


1.1, 13.4, 1.5, 8.5, 21.5, 1.6, 14.7, 15.8, 1.11, 11.11, 25.12




Hrvatska


1.1, 6.1, 12.4, 13.4, 1.5, 11.6, 30.5, 22.6, 5.8, 15.8, 1.11, 18.11, 25.12, 26.12




Italia


1.1, 6.1, 13.4, 25.4, 1.5, 2.6, 15.8, 1.11, 8.12, 25.12, 26.12




Κύπρος/Kıbrıs


1.1, 6.1, 2.3, 25.3, 1.4, 17.4, 20.4, 1.5, 8.6, 15.8, 1.10, 28.10, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12.




Latvija


1.1, 10.4, 12.4, 13.4, 1.5, 4.5, 10.5, 31.5, 22.6, 23.6, 24.6, 18.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12, 31.12




Lietuva


1.1, 16.2, 25.2, 11.3, 12.4, 13.4, 1.5, 3.5, 7.6, 24.6, 6.7, 15.8, 1.11, 2.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12




Luxembourg


1.1, 13.4, 1.5, 9.5, 21.5, 1.6, 23.6, 15.8, 1.11, 25.12, 26.12




Magyarország


1.1, 15.3, 10.4, 13.4, 1.5, 1.6, 20.8, 23.10, 1.11, 25.12, 26.12




Malta


1.1, 10.2, 19.3, 31.3, 10.4, 1.5, 7.6, 29.6, 15.8, 8.9, 21.9, 8.12, 13.12, 25.12




Nederland


1.1, 10.4, 12.4, 13.4, 27.4, 5.5, 21.5, 22.5, 31.5, 1.6, 25.12, 26.12




Österreich


1.1, 6.1, 13.4, 1.5, 21.5, 1.6, 11.6, 15.8, 26.10, 1.11, 8.12, 25.12, 26.12




Polska


1.1, 6.1, 13.4, 1.5, 3.5, 11.6, 15.8, 1.11, 11.11, 25.12, 26.12




Portugal


1.1, 10.4, 12.4, 25.4, 1.5, 10.6, 11.6, 15.8, 5.10, 1.11, 1.12, 8.12, 25.12




România


1.1, 2.1, 24.1, 17.4, 19.4, 20.4, 1.5, 1.6, 7.6, 8.6, 15.8, 30.11, 1.12, 25.12, 26.12




Slovenija


1.1, 2.1, 8.2, 12.4, 13.4, 27.4, 1.5, 2.5, 31.5, 25.6, 15.8, 31.10, 1.11, 25.12, 26.12




Slovensko


1.1, 6.1, 10.4, 13.4, 1.5, 8.5, 5.7, 29.8, 1.9, 15.9, 1.11, 17.11, 24.12, 25.12, 26.12




Suomi/Finland


1.1, 6.1, 10.4, 13.4, 1.5, 21.5, 19.6, 25.12




Sverige


1.1, 6.1, 10.4, 13.4, 1.5, 21.5, 19.6, 24.12, 25.12, 31.12




United Kingdom


Wales and England: 1.1, 10.4, 13.4, 8.5, 25.5, 31.8, 25.12, 28.12
Northern Ireland: 1.1, 10.4, 8.5, 25.5, 3.8, 30.11, 25.12, 28.12
Scotland: 1.1, 17.3, 10.4, 13.4, 8.5, 25.5, 13.7, 31.8, 25.12, 28.12
Joined Cases C-538/18 P and C-539/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2020 — České dráhy a.s. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 20(4) — Inspection decisions — Duty to state reasons — Reasonable grounds for finding an infringement of competition rules — Evidence lawfully gathered — Inspection ordered on the basis of evidence obtained from a previous inspection)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, price agreement, principle of proportionality, proof, rail transport, transport company








C_2020137EN.01001601.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/16






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 30 January 2020 — České dráhy a.s. v European Commission
(Joined Cases C-538/18 P and C-539/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 20(4) - Inspection decisions - Duty to state reasons - Reasonable grounds for finding an infringement of competition rules - Evidence lawfully gathered - Inspection ordered on the basis of evidence obtained from a previous inspection)
(2020/C 137/20)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Appellant: České dráhy a.s. (represented by: K. Muzikář, advokát, J. Kindl, advokáti)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi, G. Meessen, P. Němečková and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the appeals;










2.


České dráhy a.s. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 392, 29.10.2018.
Case C-513/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo (Italy) — Autoservizi Giordano società cooperativa v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Palermo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Directive 2003/96/EC — Article 7(2) and (3) — Concept of ‘commercial gas oil used as propellant’ — National legislation levying a duty on commercial gas oil used as propellant for the regular carriage of passengers but not for the occasional carriage of passengers — Principle of equal treatment)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bus, carriage of passengers, diesel fuel, environmental tax, equal treatment, tax relief, transport company, vehicle rental








C_2020137EN.01001501.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 Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo (Italy) — Autoservizi Giordano società cooperativa v Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Palermo
(Case C-513/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Directive 2003/96/EC - Article 7(2) and (3) - Concept of ‘commercial gas oil used as propellant’ - National legislation levying a duty on commercial gas oil used as propellant for the regular carriage of passengers but not for the occasional carriage of passengers - Principle of equal treatment)
(2020/C 137/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria provinciale di Palermo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Autoservizi Giordano società cooperativa

Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli — Ufficio di Palermo

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) and (3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning, first, that a private undertaking engaged in the activity of the carriage of passengers, by means of services of hiring a bus or a coach with a driver, falls within its scope, provided that the vehicles hired out by that undertaking are in category M2 or M3, within the meaning of Directive 70/156/EEC, and, second, that it does not preclude national legislation which provides for a reduced rate of excise duty for commercial gas oil used as propellant for the regular carriage of passengers, without, however, providing for such a rate for that used for the occasional carriage of passengers, provided that that legislation observes the principle of equal treatment, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.


(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9594 — CMA CGM/CIMC Neocontainer/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 44/01
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: container, economic concentration, logistics, maritime shipping, merger control, provision of services, storage








C_2020044EN.01000101.xml










10.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9594 — CMA CGM/CIMC Neocontainer/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 44/01)
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 32020M9594. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-598/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — Grupo Textil Brownie v EUIPO — The Guide Association (BROWNIE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark BROWNIE — Earlier national word marks BROWNIES, BROWNIE, Brownies and Brownie — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, clothing, decorative item, electronic commerce, leather, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2020077EN.01004401.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/44






Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — Grupo Textil Brownie v EUIPO — The Guide Association (BROWNIE)
(Case T-598/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark BROWNIE - Earlier national word marks BROWNIES, BROWNIE, Brownies and Brownie - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2020/C 77/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Grupo Textil Brownie, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza and J.C. Quero Navarro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Capostagno, A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: The Guide Association (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. St Quintin, Barrister, and M. Jhittay, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the EUIPO of 4 July 2018 (Case R 2680/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between The Guide Association and Grupo Textil Brownie.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Grupo Textil Brownie, SL to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 29 January 20202020/C 31/02
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020031EN.01000201.xml










30.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 31/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

29 January 2020
(2020/C 31/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1001 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,06 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4728 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84580 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5753 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0729 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0563 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,208 




HUF


Hungarian forint


337,39 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2837 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7770 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5559 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6299 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4496 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5503 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6868 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,4971 




KRW


South Korean won


1 296,65 




ZAR


South African rand


16,0719 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6310 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4420 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 991,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4884 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,929 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,9755 




THB


Thai baht


34,070 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,6089 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,6109 




INR


Indian rupee


78,4170 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-725/18: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Anton van Zantbeek VOF v Ministerraad (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Freedom to provide services — Tax on stock exchange transactions concluded or executed in a Member State — Difference in treatment to the detriment of recipients of services using non-resident professional intermediaries — Restriction — Justification)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, European Economic Area, capital transfer tax, equal treatment, establishment, freedom to provide services, stock-exchange transaction, trade intermediary








C_2020137EN.01001802.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/18






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Anton van Zantbeek VOF v Ministerraad
(Case C-725/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Freedom to provide services - Tax on stock exchange transactions concluded or executed in a Member State - Difference in treatment to the detriment of recipients of services using non-resident professional intermediaries - Restriction - Justification)
(2020/C 137/23)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Anton van Zantbeek VOF

Defendant: Ministerraad

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude legislation of a Member State which introduces a tax on stock exchange transactions concluded or executed on the order of a resident of that Member State by a non-resident professional intermediary, resulting in a restriction on the freedom to provide services provided by such professional intermediaries, in so far as that legislation offers such an issuer of an order and such professional intermediaries options, both as regards the declaration obligations connected with that tax and its payment, which limit that restriction to that which is necessary to attain the legitimate objectives pursued by that legislation.


(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Case T-168/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the administrative procedure concerning alleged State aid implemented by the Austrian authorities in favour to concession holders pursuant to the law on gaming — Refusal to grant access — Plea relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Overriding public interest — Obligation to state reasons — Plea of illegality)
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Austria, State aid, access to EU information, administrative procedure, control of State aid, disclosure of information, game of chance, trade licence








C_2020077EN.01004101.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/41






Judgment of the General Court of 30 January 2020 — CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb v Commission
(Case T-168/17) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the administrative procedure concerning alleged State aid implemented by the Austrian authorities in favour to concession holders pursuant to the law on gaming - Refusal to grant access - Plea relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Obligation to state reasons - Plea of illegality)
(2020/C 77/59)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by A. Schuster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by C. Ehrbar, F. Erlbacher and K. Blanck, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by N. Görlitz and D. Moore, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 249 final of 13 January 2017 refusing the request for access to documents concerning Case SA.40224 [2014/CP] on the basis of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders CBA Spielapparate- und Restaurantbetrieb GmbH to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;











3.



Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Case T-53/20: Action brought on 30 January 2020 — IMI 2 Joint Undertaking v CHS
Date: 2020-01-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: arbitration clause, chronic illness, eligibility criteria, financial aid, health care, interest, reimbursement of aid, research project








C_2020114EN.01001201.xml










6.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/12






Action brought on 30 January 2020 — IMI 2 Joint Undertaking v CHS
(Case T-53/20)
(2020/C 114/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: IMI 2 Joint Undertaking (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, A. Duron and F. Federici, lawyers)

Defendant: Choice Healthcare Solutions Ltd (Cardiff, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant EUR 128 996,04, plus interest, in relation to Grant Agreement 115011 regarding the project ‘PROactive — Physical Activity as a Crucial Patient Reported Outcome in COPD’, subject to interest at the rate applied by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations plus 3,5 % as of 23 July 2019, until the date of receipt of the funds to be reimbursed to the applicant;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant concluded a grant agreement with the defendant regarding the project ‘PROactive — Physical Activity as a Crucial Patient Reported Outcome in COPD’.
In support of its application brought on the basis of Article 272 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the applicant relies on breaches of the conditions of the said grant agreement by the defendant with regard to the costs claimed by it.