do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-159/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2020 — Bog-Fran v EUIPO — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ (Furniture) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an item of furniture — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Disclosure of the earlier design — Proof of disclosure — Article 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, furniture industry








C_2020114EN.01000701.xml










6.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/7






Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2020 — Bog-Fran v EUIPO — Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ (Furniture)
(Case T-159/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an item of furniture - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Disclosure of the earlier design - Proof of disclosure - Article 7 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
(2020/C 114/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Mikosza, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A. (Ostrów Mazowiecka, Poland) (represented by: H. Basiński, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 (Case R 291/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bog-Fran and Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 January 2019 (Case R 291/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bog-Fran sp. z o.o. sp.k. and Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ S.A.;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Bog-Fran;










4.


Orders Fabryki Mebli ‘Forte’ to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Case C-79/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission (Appeal — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania — Aid for early retirement — Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Article 33m(1) — Distortion of the evidence)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, commercial farming, early retirement, eligibility criteria, subsistence farming








C_2020137EN.01002301.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/23






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission
(Case C-79/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Republic of Lithuania - Aid for early retirement - Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 33m(1) - Distortion of the evidence)
(2020/C 137/30)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Appellant: Republic of Lithuania (initially represented by R. Krasuckaitė, and subsequently by K. Dieninis, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by J. Jokubauskaitė and J. Aquilina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Case T-203/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2020 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTwo) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark CaraTwo — 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.01000801.xml










6.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 114/8






Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2020 — Knaus Tabbert v EUIPO — Carado (CaraTwo)
(Case T-203/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark CaraTwo - Earlier European Union word mark Carado - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 114/06)
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)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 (Case R 851/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Carado and Knaus Tabbert.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


dismisses the application;










2.


orders Knaus Tabbert to bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 27. 5. 2019.
Case C-384/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 25(1) and (2) — Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities of accountants)
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accountant, financial services, freedom to provide services, right of establishment, single market








C_2020137EN.01001001.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/10






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-384/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 25(1) and (2) - Restrictions on multidisciplinary activities of accountants)
(2020/C 137/11)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, M. Jacobs and C. Pochet, acting as Agents, and by C. Smits and D. Grisay, lawyers, M. Vossen, G. Lievens and F. Haemers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by prohibiting the exercise of accounting activities in conjunction with the activities of an insurance broker or agent, or of an estate agent, or with any banking or financial services activity, and by permitting the chambers of the Professional Institute of Approved Accountants and Tax Consultants to prohibit the exercise of accounting activities in conjunction with any artisanal, commercial or agricultural activity, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market and Article 49 TFEU;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Case C-782/18: Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance Epinal — France) — Cofidis v YP
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, consumer credit, consumer information, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2020320EN.01001802.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/18






Order of the President of the Court of 27 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance Epinal — France) — Cofidis v YP
(Case C-782/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/31)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Case T-134/20: Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Huhtamaki v Commission
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Luxembourg, State aid, access to EU information, confidentiality, control of State aid, corporation tax, provision of documents, tax law








C_2020161EN.01004701.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/47






Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Huhtamaki v Commission
(Case T-134/20)
(2020/C 161/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Huhtamaki Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Struys and F. Pili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2019, pursuant to Article 4 of the Implementing rules to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) which rejected the applicant’s confirmatory application of 13 November 2019 for access to documents under that regulation;










—


order the European Commission to grant access to the applicant to the non-confidential versions of the document listing the beneficiaries of tax rulings submitted by Luxembourg on 22 December 2014 in response to the Commission’s letter of 19 June 2013, which is referred to in paragraph 4 of the Commission decision of 7 March 2019 opening a formal State aid investigation in case State Aid SA.50400 (2019/NN-2) — Luxembourg — Possible State aid, and the tax rulings issued by the tax administration of Luxembourg referred to by the European Commission at paragraphs 4 and 7 of the said Commission decision of 7 March 2019;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





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 that the Commission erred in law in considering that the general presumption of non-disclosure established by the case law is applicable with respect to the applicant’s request for access to the requested documents.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that, assuming that the presumption of non-disclosure would be applicable in the present case (quod non), the absence of any possible harm for the interests protected by Article 4(2), first and third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001, would rebut the application of that presumption (first limb of the second plea). In addition, the applicant claims that the application of this presumption would, in any event, be reversed, since there are overriding reasons of public interest justifying disclosure of the requested documents (second limb of the second plea).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated the requirements to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU and the applicant’s right to good administration provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.






(1)  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).
Case T-129/20: 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 system, data processing, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020129EN.01002501.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/25






Action brought on 27 February 2020 — Collibra v EUIPO — Dietrich (collibra)
(Case T-129/20)
(2020/C 129/31)
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 figurative mark collibra — Application for registration No 16 787 889

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 December 2019 in Case R 738/2019-1

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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9408 — Assa Abloy/Agta Record) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 6/07
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, furniture industry, merger control








C_2021006EN.01000901.xml










8.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 6/9






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9408 — Assa Abloy/Agta Record)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 6/07)
On 27 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) in conjunction with Article 6(2) 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 32020M9408. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9316 — Peab AB/YIT Oyj’s paving and mineral aggregates business) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 64/10
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2020064EN.01003601.xml










27.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/36






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9316 — Peab AB/YIT Oyj’s paving and mineral aggregates business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 64/10)

1.   
On 20 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:






—


Peab AB (‘Peab’, Sweden),










—


YIT Oyj (‘YIT’, Finland).




Peab acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control parts of YIT, namely all shares of YIT Danmark A/S (Denmark), all shares of YIT Norge AS (Norway), all shares of YIT Teollisuus Oy (Finland) as well as all assets of YIT Sverige AB (Sweden) that are related to its mineral aggregates, asphalt and paving businesses.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares and by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Peab is active in construction, civil engineering and related products and operates its business mainly in Finland, Norway and Sweden.










—


YIT is a construction company. The transaction concerns its business in production and sale of mineral aggregates in Finland, Norway and Sweden as well as the production and sales of asphalt and paving operations in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden.






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.



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.9316 Peab/YIT’s paving and mineral aggregates business
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’).
Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU Request made by a Member State 2020/C 64/15
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, award of contract, market access, postal service, provision of services








C_2020064EN.01005501.xml










27.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/55






Notice concerning a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Request made by a Member State
(2020/C 64/15)
On 19 December 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 20 December 2019.
This request, made by the Kingdom of Denmark, concerns business to consumer parcel services in Denmark. Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU provides that ‘contracts intended to enable an activity mentioned in Articles 8 to 14 to be carried out, shall not be subject to this Directive if the Member State or the contracting entities having introduced the request pursuant to Article 35 can demonstrate that, in the Member State in which it is performed, the activity is directly exposed to competition on markets to which access is not restricted; nor shall design contests that are organised for the pursuit of such an activity in that geographic area be subject to this Directive’. The assessment of direct exposure to competition that can be carried out in the context of Directive 2014/25/EU is without prejudice to the full-fledged application of competition law.
The Commission is allowed a period of 90 working days to take a decision on this request, commencing on the working day referred to above. The period therefore expires on 11 May 2020.
According to Article 35(5) of Directive 2014/25/EU, further requests concerning the same sector or activity in Denmark before the expiry of the period opened in respect of this request shall not be considered as new procedures and shall be treated in the context of this request.


(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).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9410 — Saudi Aramco/SABIC) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 63/02
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, economic concentration, fertiliser industry, intermediate goods, merger control, metals, natural gas, oil industry, petroleum product, plastics industry








C_2021063EN.01000201.xml










23.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9410 — Saudi Aramco/SABIC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 63/02)
On 27 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 32020M9410. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-110/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 February 2020 — Regione Puglia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others
Date: 2020-02-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Apulia, Italy, energy site, hydrocarbon, industrial operating licence, petroleum exploration








C_2020247EN.01000502.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 27 February 2020 — Regione Puglia v Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others
(Case C-110/20)
(2020/C 247/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Regione Puglia

Defendant: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Commissione tecnica di verifica dell’impatto ambientale

Question referred

Is Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that described which on the one hand recommends, for the purpose of issuing a hydrocarbons exploration permit, an area of a specified extent, granted for a specific period of time — in the present case, an area of 750 square kilometres for six years — and on the other hand allows those limits to be exceeded by the issue of multiple exploration permits for adjacent areas to the same legal entity, provided that they are issued following separate administrative procedures?


(1)  Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorizations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons (OJ 1994 L 164, p. 3).