do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Council Decision (Euratom) 2021/390 of 20 February 2020 approving the conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of India for research and development cooperation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EAEC, India, cooperation agreement (EU), energy research, nuclear energy, peaceful use of energy, ratification of an agreement, research and development, scientific cooperation




L_2021077EN.01000101.xml










5.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 77/1








            COUNCIL DECISION (Euratom) 2021/390
of 20 February 2020
         
approving the conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of India for research and development cooperation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 101 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Whereas:







(1)


The European Commission has, in accordance with the Council Directives of 3 July 2009, conducted negotiations on an Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of India for research and development cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.












(2)


Those negotiations have now been successfully concluded.












(3)


The conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The conclusion, by the European Commission, of the Agreement between the European Atomic Energy Community and the Government of the Republic of India for research and development cooperation in the field of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, is hereby approved (*1).


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 20 February 2020.


For the Council


The President

B. DIVJAK
            





(*1)  Agreement published in OJ L 440, 30.12.2020, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9707 — Aperam Alloys Imphy/Tekna Plasma Europe/ImphyTek Powders) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 64/02
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: alloy, economic concentration, machinery, merger control, nickel, powder metallurgy, special steels, steel








C_2020064EN.01000701.xml










27.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/7






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9707 — Aperam Alloys Imphy/Tekna Plasma Europe/ImphyTek Powders)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 64/02)
On 20 February 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 32020M9707. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-98/20: Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — Laubender (medical beauty research)
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, cosmetic product, dental medicine, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020114EN.01001802.xml










6.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/18






Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Biochange Group v EUIPO — Laubender (medical beauty research)
(Case T-98/20)
(2020/C 114/20)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Biochange Group GmbH (Bad Schlema, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laubender GmbH (Vienna, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘medical beauty research’ — EU trade mark No 4 215 935

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 in Case R 114/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and Laubender GmbH, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of the appeal proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.










—


Infringement of the second sentence of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-89/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Puli (Croatia) lodged on 20 February 2020 — criminal proceedings against GR, HS, IT, and INTER CONSULTING d.o.o., in liquidation
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, Croatia, criminal proceedings, offence, preliminary ruling procedure








C_2020390EN.01001602.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Puli (Croatia) lodged on 20 February 2020 — criminal proceedings against GR, HS, IT, and INTER CONSULTING d.o.o., in liquidation
(Case C-89/20)
(2020/C 390/23)
Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Županijski sud u Puli

Parties to the main proceedings

GR, HS, IT, and INTER CONSULTING d.o.o, in liquidation
By order of 1 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Županijski sud u Puli (Pula County Court, Croatia) is manifestly inadmissible.
Case T-115/20: Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, President of the EP, abuse of power, parliamentary immunity, parliamentary rules of procedure, right to stand for election








C_2020129EN.01001801.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/18






Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Puigdemont i Casamajó and Comín i Oliveres v Parliament
(Case T-115/20)
(2020/C 129/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Carles Puigdemont i Casamajó (Waterloo, Belgium), Antoni Comín i Oliveres (Waterloo) (represented by: P. Bekaert, G. Boye and S. Bekaert, lawyers and B. Emmerson, QC)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the President of the European Parliament, as reflected in his letter of 10 December 2019, not to announce in Parliament and refer to the committee responsible the request for the defence of the immunity of the applicants lodged by Ms. Diana Riba i Giner on their behalf on 10 October 2019 pursuant to Rule 7(1) and (2) and Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law, alleging that the President of the European Parliament’s decision not to announce the request for the defence of the immunity of the applicants in Parliament and refer it to the committee responsible infringed Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, in connection with Article 343 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 9 and 18 of Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (1), Articles 6, 39(2), 41 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 2(1) of the Statute of Members of the European Parliament (2) and Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.


(1)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 266.

(2)  Decision of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament (2005/684/EC, Euratom), OJ 2005 L 262, p. 1.
Case C-88/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal correctionnel de Bordeaux (France) lodged on 20 February 2020 — Procureur de la République v ENR Grenelle Habitat SARL, EP, FQ
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, criminal proceedings, distance selling, general legal principle, legality, principle of legal certainty








C_2020161EN.01003601.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal correctionnel de Bordeaux (France) lodged on 20 February 2020 — Procureur de la République v ENR Grenelle Habitat SARL, EP, FQ
(Case C-88/20)
(2020/C 161/47)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal correctionnel de Bordeaux

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Procureur de la République

Defendants: ENR Grenelle Habitat SARL, EP, FQ

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in the light of Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights relating thereto, preclude a duplication of criminal proceedings and administrative proceedings of a criminal nature whose subject matter is a single act (cold calling) prosecuted under two different classifications?










2.


If it does — which means a single set of proceedings for the same act — does not Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrines the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, interpreted in the light of the rights and freedoms in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights relating thereto, require that the conditions and criteria for a single set of proceedings be defined in advance, having regard in particular to the gravity of the infringement?










3.


If it does not — which means a duplication of proceedings — does not Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which enshrines the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, interpreted in the light of the rights and freedoms in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights relating thereto, require that that duplication of criminal proceedings and administrative proceedings of a criminal nature for a single act (cold calling) be limited to the most serious cases and, in that case, that the criteria for determining gravity be defined in advance?
Case T-96/20: Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, education, paper, paperboard, personnel administration, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020191EN.01001802.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/18






Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Types)
(Case T-96/20)
(2020/C 191/25)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark Limbic® Types — Application No 12 316 469

Contested decision: Decision of the EUIPO Grand Board of Appeal of 2 December 2019 in Case R 1276/2017-G

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 96 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/118 of 27 January 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1775 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Mali (Official Journal of the European Union L 22 of 28 January 2020)
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Mali, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








LI2020047EN.01000901.xml










20.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


LI 47/9







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/118 of 27 January 2020 implementing Decision (CFSP) 2017/1775 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Mali

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 22 of 28 January 2020
)


On page 57, the Annex, Part (1) (amending Part A of the Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2017/1775), fourth entry, heading:
for:






‘4.


AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmado Ag Albachar)’,




read:






‘4.


AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmadou Ag Albachar)’;




on page 62, the Annex, Part (2) (amending Part B of the Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2017/1775), first entry, heading:
for:






‘1.


AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmado Ag Albachar)’,




read:






‘1.


AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmadou Ag Albachar)’.
Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/116 of 27 January 2020 implementing Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1770 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Mali (Official Journal of the European Union L 22 of 28 January 2020)
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Mali, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








LI2020047EN.01000801.xml










20.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


LI 47/8







Corrigendum to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/116 of 27 January 2020 implementing Article 12(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1770 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Mali

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 22 of 28 January 2020
)


On page 26, in the Annex, first entry, heading:
for:







‘1.


AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmado Ag Albachar)’,





read:







‘1.


AHMED AG ALBACHAR (alias: Intahmadou Ag Albachar)’.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 19 February 2020 2020/C 57/05
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020057EN.01000801.xml










20.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

19 February 2020
(2020/C 57/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0800 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,35 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4693 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,83148 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5743 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0621 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0178 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


24,962 




HUF


Hungarian forint


336,33 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2712 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7792 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5606 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6142 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4281 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3925 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6883 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5033 




KRW


South Korean won


1 284,75 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1425 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5538 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4453 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


14 783,04 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,4955 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,616 




RUB


Russian rouble


68,6245 




THB


Thai baht


33,696 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7184 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,0690 




INR


Indian rupee


77,2345 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-112/20: Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Intis v EUIPO — Televes (TELEVEND)
Date: 2020-02-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, automatic vending machine, cloud computing, computer equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020137EN.01005401.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/54






Action brought on 20 February 2020 — Intis v EUIPO — Televes (TELEVEND)
(Case T-112/20)
(2020/C 137/84)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Intis d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: T. Nagy, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Televes, SA (Santiago de Compostela, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark TELEVEND — European Union trade mark No 15 547 871

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2019 in Case R 1923/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in connection with Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.