do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-505/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Hungary v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Support for rural development — Support granted to producer groups — Expenditure incurred by Hungary — Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Qualified recognition — Eligibility of the beneficiary of the aid — Calculated financial correction — Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Sincere cooperation — Protection of legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Legal certainty — Ineligible amounts)
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, financial aid, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, producer organisation, rural development








C_2020095EN.01002501.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/25






Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-505/18) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Support for rural development - Support granted to producer groups - Expenditure incurred by Hungary - Article 35 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Qualified recognition - Eligibility of the beneficiary of the aid - Calculated financial correction - Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Sincere cooperation - Protection of legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Ineligible amounts)
(2020/C 95/30)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, M. Tátrai, A. Pokoraczki and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/873 of 13 June 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 152, p. 29).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Hungary to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case C-76/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 February 2020 — Balev Bio EOOD v Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, Teritorialna Direktsia Severna Morska
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, bonded wood, specification of tariff heading








C_2020161EN.01003401.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 February 2020 — Balev Bio EOOD v Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, Teritorialna Direktsia Severna Morska
(Case C-76/20)
(2020/C 161/45)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Balev Bio EOOD

Respondent: Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’, Teritorialna Direktsia Severna Morska

Questions referred







1.


Is Rule 3(а) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 (1) of 6 October 2015 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the classification of products such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are made up of different materials, the heading covering the material that outweighs the other materials by quantity (bulk) is the ‘heading which provides the most specific description’ or is that interpretation only possible if the heading itself provides for quantity (bulk) as a criterion that provides the most specific, precise and complete description?










2.


Depending on the answer to the first question and in light of the [Harmonised System, (‘HS’)] Explanatory Notes on headings 4410 and 4419: Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 to be interpreted as meaning that heading 4419 does not include products of particle board (fibre) in which the weight of the binding substance (thermosetting resin) exceeds 15 % of the weight of the board?










3.


Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 to be interpreted as meaning that goods such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that is beakers manufactured from a composite material made up of plant lignocellulosic fibres in a proportion of 72,33 % and a melamine resin binding substance in a proportion of 25,2 %, are to be categorised under subheading 3924 10 00 of Annex I?






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff. OJ 2015 L 285, p. 1.
Case C-72/20 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2020 by Refan Bulgaria OOD against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2019 in Case T-747/18, Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, decorative item, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020247EN.01000302.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/3






Appeal brought on 12 February 2020 by Refan Bulgaria OOD against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2019 in Case T-747/18, Refan Bulgaria v EUIPO (Shape of a flower)
(Case C-72/20 P)
(2020/C 247/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Refan Bulgaria OOD (represented by: A. Ivanova, адвокат)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 4 June 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9681 — Inflexion/ICG /Marston) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 48/12
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carrier, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2020048EN.01002001.xml










12.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/20






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9681 — Inflexion/ICG /Marston)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 48/12)

1.   
On 4 February 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:






—


Inflexion Private Equity Partners LLP (‘Inflexion’ United Kingdom),










—


Intermediate Capital Group (‘ICG’, United Kingdom),










—


Marston Corporate Limited (‘Marston’, United Kingdom).




Inflexion and ICG acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Marston.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Inflexion: private equity firm with a range of investors from large institutions to individuals,










—


for ICG: asset manager, active in the structuring and provision of mezzanine finance, leveraged credit and private equity in Europe, Asia Pacific and the USA,










—


for Marston: transportation and debt enforcement service provider in the United Kingdom.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.9681 — Inflexion/ICG /Marston
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-174/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Mutondo v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Renewal of the listing of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Obligation for the Council to communicate the new elements justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Presumption of innocence — Plea of illegality)
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020103EN.01002502.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/25






Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Mutondo v Council
(Case T-174/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Renewal of the listing of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Obligation for the Council to communicate the new elements justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Plea of illegality)
(2020/C 103/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Kalev Mutondo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, S. Lejeune and H. Marcos Fraile, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 328, p. 19), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Kalev Mutondo to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9703 — SCP/Real) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 48/14
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, electronic commerce, goods and services, investment, meat processing industry, merger control, payment system, retail trade, supply








C_2020048EN.01002301.xml










12.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/23






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9703 — SCP/Real)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 48/14)

1.   
On 4 February 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:






—


SCP Group S.à.r.l. (‘SCP Group’, Luxembourg), controlled by: (i) joint stock financial corporation Sistema (Russia), ultimately controlled by Mr. Vladimir Evtushenkov and (ii) Mr. Felix Evtushenkov (Russia),










—


‘real’ business (‘real Group’, Germany), controlled by METRO AG (Germany).




SCP acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of the real Group. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for SCP Group: real estate-based investments and advisory services,










—


for the real Group: food and non-food retail supply by means of 276 hypermarkets in Germany and an online marketplace, as well as meat‐processing (‘Meister feines Fleisch - feine Wurst GmbH’) and digital payment services.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.9703 — SCP/Real
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-70/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 February 2020 — YL v Altenrhein Luftfahrt GmbH
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, transport accident, trauma, traveller








C_2020201EN.01001001.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 12 February 2020 — YL v Altenrhein Luftfahrt GmbH
(Case C-70/20)
(2020/C 201/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: YL

Defendant: Altenrhein Luftfahrt GmbH

Question referred

Does a hard landing, albeit still made within the normal operating range of an aircraft, which results in injury to a flight passenger constitute an accident within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air concluded on 28 May 1999 in Montreal, signed on 9 December 1999 by the European Community and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001? (1)



(1)  2001/539/EC: Council Decision of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).
Case C-704/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Nikolay Kolev and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Implementation of a preliminary ruling of the Court — Power of a higher court to impose an injunction relating to the detailed rules for implementation — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principle of effectiveness — Observance of the rights of the defence)
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, higher court, injunction, preliminary ruling procedure, right to information, rights of the defence








C_2020103EN.01000401.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against Nikolay Kolev and Others
(Case C-704/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Implementation of a preliminary ruling of the Court - Power of a higher court to impose an injunction relating to the detailed rules for implementation - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of effectiveness - Observance of the rights of the defence)
(2020/C 103/04)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Parties in the main proceedings

Nikolay Boykov Kolev, Stefan Georgiev Kostadinov, Nasko Dimitrov Kurdov, Plamen Georgiev Drenski, Georgi Atanasov Zlatanov, Dimitar Atanasov Dimitrov

Operative part of the judgment

In the light of the Court’s interpretation of Article 6(3) and Article 7(3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings in point 2 of the operative part of the judgment of 5 June 2018, Kolev and Others (C-612/15, EU:C:2018:392), Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national procedural law which obliges the referring court in the case giving rise to that judgment to comply with an injunction, imposed on it by a higher court, to refer the case back to the prosecutor, after the termination of the trial phase of the criminal proceedings, for procedural irregularities committed during the pre-trial phase of those proceedings to be remedied, to the extent that those provisions of EU law, as interpreted by the Court in point 2 of the operative part of that judgment, are respected in the context of the pre-trial phase of the criminal proceedings or in that of the subsequent trial phase thereof.


(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-79/20: Action brought on 12 February 2020 — AI v ECDC
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020129EN.01000601.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/6






Action brought on 12 February 2020 — AI v ECDC
(Case T-79/20)
(2020/C 129/06)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: AI (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision dated 5 April 2019 rejecting his request for assistance of 10 April 2018;










—


annul, if need be, the decision dated 4 November 2019 rejecting his complaint dated 5 July 2019;










—


order financial compensation which can be evaluated, ex aequo et bono, as the sum of EUR 75 000;










—


order the reimbursement of his legal costs incurred.





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 violation of the duty to state reasons and the right to be heard.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and a breach of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging violation of the duty of care.
Case T-168/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Numbi v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo — Freezing of funds — Renewal of the listing of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Obligation for the Council to communicate the new elements justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Presumption of innocence — Plea of illegality)
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020103EN.01002101.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/21






Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2020 — Numbi v Council
(Case T-168/18) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo - Freezing of funds - Renewal of the listing of the applicant’s name on the list of persons concerned - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Obligation for the Council to communicate the new elements justifying the renewal of the restrictive measures - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Presumption of innocence - Plea of illegality)
(2020/C 103/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, H. Marcos Fraile and S. Van Overmeire, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2282 of 11 December 2017 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2017 L 328, p. 19), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr John Numbi to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union2020/C 48/07
Date: 2020-02-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, chemical compound, common customs tariff








C_2020048EN.01000801.xml










12.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 48/8






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2020/C 48/07)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 161, in the Explanatory note to subheading ‘

2933 49 10 Halogen derivatives of quinoline; quinolinecarboxylic acid derivatives’

, the third paragraph is replaced and additional paragraphs are added:


‘The term “quinolinecarboxylic acid derivatives” includes derivatives of quinolinecarboxylic acid in which one or more hydrogen atom(s) of the aromatic ring system and/or the acid function has/have been substituted. Quinolinedicarboxylic acid derivatives are also covered by this term.
4-Hydroxyquinoline-3-carboxylic acids (enol tautomers) and 4-oxo-1,4-dihydroquinoline-3-carboxylic acids (keto tautomers) can be all considered as quinolinecarboxylic acid derivatives of subheading 2933 49 10. Substitution on any atom of the ring (including nitrogen) in either the enol or the keto tautomer does not remove quinolinecarboxylate moiety from the molecule.
In addition, since the carboxylic acid moiety plays no role in the keto-enol tautomerisation, also e.g. the 4-hydroxyquinoline-2-carboxylic acids and other regioisomers are covered by the term “quinolinecarboxylic acid”.
Examples:

 ’



(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.