do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-104/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2020 — SD v Habitations sociales du Roman Païs SCRL, TE, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Régie des Quartiers de Tubize ASBL
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, employer, labour standard, legal working time, rest period, staff








C_2020161EN.01003702.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/37






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Belgium) lodged on 27 February 2020 — SD v Habitations sociales du Roman Païs SCRL, TE, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Régie des Quartiers de Tubize ASBL
(Case C-104/20)
(2020/C 161/49)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail de Nivelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SD

Defendants: Habitations sociales du Roman Païs SCRL, TE, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of Régie des Quartiers de Tubize ASBL

Questions referred

Must Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, (1) read in the light of Article 31(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Articles 4(1), 11(3) and 16(3) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work, (2) to the extent that they preclude the legislation of a Member State that does not require employers to set up a system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured (judgment of 14 May 2019, CCOO, C-55/18, EU:C:2019:402), be interpreted as precluding national legislation, in the present case Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code, which requires a party claiming performance of an obligation to prove that the obligation exists, where that legislation fails to establish that the burden of proof is reversed where workers claim to have exceeded their normal working time and where:






—


that national legislation, in the present case the Belgian legislation, does not require employers to set up a reliable system enabling the duration of time worked each day by each worker to be measured; and










—


the employer has not spontaneously set up such a system,










—


so that it is impossible in practice for a worker to demonstrate that he has exceeded normal working time?’






(1)  OJ 2003, L 299, p. 9.

(2)  OJ 1989, L 183, p. 1.
Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates applicable as from 1 March 2020 (Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1)) 2020/C 64/05
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, interest, reimbursement of aid








C_2020064EN.01001601.xml










27.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/16






Commission notice on current State aid recovery interest rates and reference/discount rates applicable as from 1 March 2020


(Published in accordance with Article 10 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 (OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1))


(2020/C 64/05)
Base rates calculated in accordance with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 14, 19.1.2008, p. 6.). Depending on the use of the reference rate, the appropriate margins have still to be added as defined in this communication. For the discount rate this means that a margin of 100 basispoints has to be added. The Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 foresees that, unless otherwise provided for in a specific decision, the recovery rate will also be calculated by adding 100 basispoints to the base rate.
Modified rates are indicated in bold.
Previous table published in OJ C 8, 13.1.2020, p. 4.


































From


To


AT


BE


BG


CY


CZ


DE


DK


EE


EL


ES


FI


FR


HR


HU


IE


IT


LT


LU


LV


MT


NL


PL


PT


RO


SE


SI


SK


UK




1.3.2020


...


-0,31 


-0,31 


0,00


-0,31 


2,25


-0,31 



-0,05 



-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


0,26


0,30


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


1,84


-0,31 


3,21



0,26



-0,31 


-0,31 


0,94




1.2.2020


29.2.2020


-0,31 


-0,31 


0,00


-0,31 


2,25


-0,31 



-0,07 



-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


0,26


0,30


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


-0,31 


1,84


-0,31 


3,21



0,18



-0,31 


-0,31 


0,94




1.1.2020


31.1.2020



-0,31 




-0,31 




0,00




-0,31 




2,25




-0,31 




-0,12 




-0,31 




-0,31 




-0,31 




-0,31 




-0,31 




0,26




0,30




-0,31 




-0,31 




-0,31 




-0,31 




-0,31 




-0,31 




-0,31 




1,84




-0,31 




3,21




0,11




-0,31 




-0,31 




0,94
Notice concerning a the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU Suspension of the period for adoption of implementing acts 2020/C 64/14
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Greece, award of contract, delivery, provision of services, transport company








C_2020064EN.01005401.xml










27.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/54






Notice concerning a the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Suspension of the period for adoption of implementing acts
(2020/C 64/14)
On 6 June 2019 the Commission received a request in accordance with Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1). The first working day following receipt of the request is 7 June 2019 and the initial period available to the Commission for deciding on this request was of 105 working days.
This request, made by Elta Courier S.A., concerns courier services in Greece. The relevant notice was published on page 8 of OJ C 53 on 17 February 2020.
Pursuant to Annex IV, point 2, of Directive 2014/25/EU, the Commission may require the Member State or the contracting entity concerned or the competent independent national authority or any other competent national authority to provide all necessary information or to supplement or clarify information given within an appropriate time limit. On 26 August 2019 the Commission asked the national authorities to provide additional information by 9 September 2019 at the latest. On 6 September 2019 Commission asked the Elta Courier to provide additional information by 13 September 2019 at the latest.
In the event of late or incomplete answers, the initial deadline shall be suspended for the period between the expiry of the time limit set in the request for information, and the receipt of the complete and correct information.
The formal deadline will therefore expire after 40 working days after the receipt of complete and correct information.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Case C-240/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(f) — Absolute ground for refusal — Mark contrary to accepted principles of morality — Word sign ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ — Rejection of the application for registration)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, film production, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020161EN.01000601.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/6






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — Constantin Film Produktion GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-240/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(f) - Absolute ground for refusal - Mark contrary to accepted principles of morality - Word sign ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ - Rejection of the application for registration)
(2020/C 161/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (represented by: E. Saarmann and P. Baronikians, Rechtsanwälte)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Hanf, Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2018, Constantin Film Produktion v EUIPO (Fack Ju Göhte) (T-69/17, not published, EU:T:2018:27);










2.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2016 (Case R-2205/2015-5) relating to an application for registration of the word sign ‘Fack Ju Göhte’ as an EU trade mark;










3.


Orders the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Constantin Film Produktion GmbH in relation both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-69/17 and on appeal.






(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Case C-405/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AURES Holdings a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Transfer of a company’s place of effective management to a Member State other than its registered seat — Transfer of tax residency to that other Member State — National legislation not allowing a tax loss incurred in the Member State of incorporation before the transfer of its seat to be claimed)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: business management, corporation tax, establishment, loss, nationality of legal persons, right of establishment, tax law, transfer of businesses








C_2020137EN.01001201.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/12






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — AURES Holdings a.s. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-405/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Transfer of a company’s place of effective management to a Member State other than its registered seat - Transfer of tax residency to that other Member State - National legislation not allowing a tax loss incurred in the Member State of incorporation before the transfer of its seat to be claimed)
(2020/C 137/14)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší správní soud

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AURES Holdings a.s.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a company incorporated under the law of a Member State, which transfers its place of effective management to another Member State without that transfer affecting its status as a company incorporated under the law of the first Member State, may rely on that article for the purposes of contesting a refusal in the second Member State to defer losses prior to that transfer;










2.


Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which excludes the possibility for a company, which has transferred its place of effective management and, as a result, its tax residency to that Member State, from claiming a tax loss incurred, prior to that transfer, in another Member State, in which it has retained its registered seat.






(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Case T-131/20: Action brought on 27 February 2020 — IR v Commission
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Cedefop, European official, appointment of staff, family protection, posted worker, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020161EN.01004501.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/45






Action brought on 27 February 2020 — IR v Commission
(Case T-131/20)
(2020/C 161/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: IR (represented by: S. Pappas and A. Pappas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the Director General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion contained in the e-mail of 2 July 2019 of the competent HR business correspondent by which the request of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) for the third renewal of the secondment of the applicant was rejected;










—


annul the decision of 23 January 2020 of the Appointing Authority rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





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 the irregularity of the pre-litigation procedure, which did not lead to a proper review by the Appointing Authority of the contested decision of 2 July 2019.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an essential and procedural violation of Article 38 of the Staff Regulations.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principle of the duty of care, as part of the right to sound administration with regard to the non-consideration of all the factual elements of the case and the lack of statement of reasons.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of the right of protection of the family enshrined in Article 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Case T-128/20: Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Collibra v EUIPO — Dietrich (COLLIBRA)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business data processing, computer equipment, computer system, consultancy, data processing, maintenance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020129EN.01002401.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/24






Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Collibra v EUIPO — Dietrich (COLLIBRA)
(Case T-128/20)
(2020/C 129/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Collibra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Renck, A. Bothe, lawyers and I. Junkar, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hans Dietrich (Starnberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark COLLIBRA — Application for registration No 16 787 772

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 737/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) 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.
Council Decision of 27 February 2020 appointing a chairperson of a Board of Appeal and extending the term of office of a chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office 2020/C 72 I/01
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, administrator, decision-making body (EU)




CI2020072EN.01000101.xml










5.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 72/1






COUNCIL DECISION
of 27 February 2020
appointing a chairperson of a Board of Appeal and extending the term of office of a chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office
(2020/C 72 I/01)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1), and in particular Article 166(1) and (3) thereof,
Whereas:






(1)


On 22 November 2019, a list of candidates for the post of chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) was submitted to the Council by the Management Board of the EUIPO.










(2)


On 19 November 2019, the Management Board of the EUIPO decided to propose to the Council the extension of the term of office of Mr Detlef SCHENNEN as chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the EUIPO for an additional period of five years, as from 1 November 2020,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1.   Ms Virginia MELGAR, born in Minas (Uruguay) on 19 July 1959, is hereby appointed chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for a term of five years.


2.   The date on which the five-year term referred to in paragraph 1 commences shall be determined by the Management Board of the EUIPO.



Article 2
The term of office of Mr Detlef SCHENNEN as chairperson of a Board of Appeal of the EUIPO is hereby extended from 1 November 2020 to 31 October 2025.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.


Done at Brussels, 27 February 2020.


For the Council


The President

D. HORVAT




(1)  OJ L 154, 16.6.2017, p. 1.
Case T-202/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2020 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTour) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark CaraTour — Earlier European Union word mark Carado — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, camping vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts, vehicle rental








C_2020114EN.01000702.xml










6.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/7






Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2020 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTour)
(Case T-202/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark CaraTour - Earlier European Union word mark Carado - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 114/05)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Knaus Tabbert GmbH (Jandelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: N. Maenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Carado GmbH (Leutkirch im Allgäu, Germany (represented by: A. Otto, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 (Case R 506/2018-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Carado and Knaus Tabbert.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the application;










2.


orders Knaus Tabbert GmbH to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 27. 5. 2019.