do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-103/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Mutondo v Council
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020129EN.01001002.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/10






Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Mutondo v Council
(Case T-103/20)
(2020/C 129/12)
Language of the case: French

Parties


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

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 12 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 12 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Case T-104/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ramazani Shadary v Council
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020129EN.01001101.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/11






Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ramazani Shadary v Council
(Case T-104/20)
(2020/C 129/13)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Emmanuel Ramazani Shadary (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 11 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 11 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Case C-87/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2020 — Hauptzollamt B v XY
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conservation of resources, export licence, fish product, import licence, protected species, protection of animal life, trade restriction








C_2020175EN.01000301.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 19 February 2020 — Hauptzollamt B v XY
(Case C-87/20)
(2020/C 175/03)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Hauptzollamt B

Respondent: XY

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 57(5)(a) of Regulation No 865/2006, (1) as amended by Regulation No 2015/870, to be interpreted as meaning that an importer carrying a total of more than 125 grams (g) of caviar of sturgeon species (Acipenseriformes spp.) in individually marked containers, for which he presents neither a (re-)export document nor an import permit, is to be allowed to keep up to 125 g of caviar, provided that the import is not for any of the purposes listed in the first subparagraph of Article 57(1) of Regulation No 865/2006?
If that question is to be answered in the affirmative:










2.


Do specimens introduced into the customs territory of the European Union also qualify as personal and household effects within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (2) where the importer declares at the time of introduction that he intends to present the imported items as a gift to other persons?






(1)  Commission Regulation No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 2006 L 166, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (OJ 1997 L 61, p. 1).
Case T-108/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020129EN.01001302.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/13






Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kahimbi Kasagwe v Council
(Case T-108/20)
(2020/C 129/17)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Delphin Kahimbi Kasagwe (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 6 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 6 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Case T-102/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kampete v Council
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020129EN.01001001.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/10






Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kampete v Council
(Case T-102/20)
(2020/C 129/11)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 1 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 1 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Case C-101/20 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2020 by Currency One S.A. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 19 December 2019 in Case T-501/18, Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkciarz.pl
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, computer equipment, gaming, publishing, recording equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020304EN.01000303.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/3






Appeal brought on 19 February 2020 by Currency One S.A. against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 19 December 2019 in Case T-501/18, Currency One v EUIPO — Cinkciarz.pl
(Case C-101/20 P)
(2020/C 304/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Appellant: Currency One S.A. (represented by: P. Szmidt, adwokat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o.
By order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) delivered on 28 May 2020, the appeal was not allowed to proceed.
Special Report 3/2020 ‘The Commission contributes to nuclear safety in the EU, but updates required’ 2020/C 56/05
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EAEC, European Commission, application of EU law, nuclear energy, nuclear law, nuclear policy, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, peaceful use of energy, public safety








C_2020056EN.01000501.xml










19.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/5






Special Report 3/2020
‘The Commission contributes to nuclear safety in the EU, but updates required’
(2020/C 56/05)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 3/2020 ‘The Commission contributes to nuclear safety in the EU, but updates required’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ Internet: http://eca.europa.eu.
Case T-101/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020129EN.01000901.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/9






Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Ilunga Luyoyo v Council
(Case T-101/20)
(2020/C 129/10)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Ferdinand Ilunga Luyoyo (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 3 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 3 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Case T-114/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Alvargonzález Ramos v EUIPO — Ursus-3 Capital, A.V. (URSUS Kapital)
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020129EN.01001701.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/17






Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Alvargonzález Ramos v EUIPO — Ursus-3 Capital, A.V. (URSUS Kapital)
(Case T-114/20)
(2020/C 129/22)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Pablo Erik Alvargonzález Ramos (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ursus-3 Capital, A.V., SA (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark URSUS Kapital — European Union trade mark No 5 641 303

Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2019 in Case R 711/202019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


deliver a judgment amending the contested decision and dismissing the application for a declaration of invalidity for non-use brought against the registered European Union trade mark No 5 641 303 URSUS Kapital (figurative) in relation to ‘financial affairs’ in Class 36 and declare that trade mark No 5 641 303 has been genuinely used for ‘financial affairs’;










—


in the alternative, deliver a judgment which, in addition to amending the contested decision, dismissing the application for a declaration of invalidity for non-use brought against the registered European Union trade mark No 5 641 303 URSUS Kapital (figurative) in relation to ‘financial affairs’ in Class 36, declares that trade mark No 5 641 303 has been genuinely used at least for ‘financial affairs, namely investment services, investment of funds, investment analysis, investment management and administration, investment advice and real estate investment services’.










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law

Infringement of Articles 18 and 58 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Article 10 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Case T-106/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Amisi Kumba v Council
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020129EN.01001201.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/12






Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Amisi Kumba v Council
(Case T-106/20)
(2020/C 129/15)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 2 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 2 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.
Case T-111/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and Others v Commission
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Indonesia, biofuel, countervailing charge, import (EU), originating product, price support, vegetable oil








C_2020129EN.01001501.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/15






Action brought on 19 February 2020 — PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and Others v Commission
(Case T-111/20)
(2020/C 129/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia (Medan, Indonesia), PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia (Medan), PT Multi Nabati Sulawesi (Sulawesi Utara, Indonesia) (represented by: P. Vander Schueren and E. Gergondet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2019/2092 of 28 November 2019 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Indonesia (1), as far as it applies to the applicants;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicants in relation to these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission acted in breach of Articles 3(1)(a), 3(1)(a)(i), 3(2) and 7(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘basic Regulation’) and committed manifest errors of assessment by considering that payments received from the Oil Palm Plantation Fund constituted a countervailable subsidy and by failing to adjust the benefit allegedly received by the applicants for the discounts, as well as transportation and credit costs that were incurred to obtain the alleged subsidies.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 3(1)(a)(iv), 3(1)(b), 3(2), 6(d) and 28(5) of the basic Regulation and committed manifest errors of assessment, by concluding to the existence of a government support for the provision of crude palm oil for less than adequate remuneration.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment and acted in breach of Article 8(8) of the basic Regulation, by concluding that the Union industry was under a threat of material injury.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant acted in breach of Articles 8(5) and 8(6) of the basic Regulation and committed manifest errors of assessment, by concluding that imports from Indonesia were threatening to cause injury to the Union industry and ignoring the impact of imports from Argentina.






(1)  OJ 2019 L 317, p. 42.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9735 — Amex/GBT) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 56/11
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, merger control, provision of services, travel agency








C_2020056EN.01001201.xml










19.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/12






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9735 — Amex/GBT)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 56/11)

1.   
On 10 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:






—


American Express Company (‘Amex’, United States);










—


GBT JerseyCo Limited (‘GBT’, Jersey), currently controlled by Amex and Qatar Holding LLC.
Amex acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of GBT.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares from Qatar Holding LLC and other shareholders by third parties, thereby reducing the shares of Qatar Holding LLC in GBT.






2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Amex: multinational financial services. Amex, together with its consolidated subsidiaries, provides credit card financial services and business and leisure travel services to consumers and businesses around the world. Amex is active in payment card issuing and merchant acquiring worldwide.










—


for GBT: provision of travel agency services to businesses, active globally.






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.9735 — Amex/GBT
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-110/20: Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kanyama v Council
Date: 2020-02-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, natural person, principle of proportionality, protection of privacy, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020129EN.01001402.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/14






Action brought on 19 February 2020 — Kanyama v Council
(Case T-110/20)
(2020/C 129/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Célestin Kanyama (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/2109 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 4 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;










—


annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2101 of 9 December 2019, in so far as the applicant’s name is maintained at No 4 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;










—


rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(b) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) [No 1183/2005] are unlawful;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-95/20, Kazembe Musonda v Council.