do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-121/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2020 — VG v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU visa policy, appeal, right to justice, threat to national security








C_2020209EN.01000902.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2020 — VG v Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken
(Case C-121/20)
(2020/C 209/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VG

Defendant: Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken

Question referred

Is the answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in the cases before the Court registered under numbers C-225/19 and C-226/19 different if it has been made known or has become known which country it is that objected to the issuing of a visa to the applicant during the prior consultation as referred to in Article 22 of the Visa Code? (1)



(1)  Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1).
Case C-328/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue — Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Consideration of marketing circumstances — Counteraction of a phonetic similarity through visual and conceptual differences — Conditions for counteraction)
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020161EN.01000602.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/6






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Equivalenza Manufactory, SL
(Case C-328/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue - Global assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Consideration of marketing circumstances - Counteraction of a phonetic similarity through visual and conceptual differences - Conditions for counteraction)
(2020/C 161/08)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J.F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Equivalenza Manufactory, SL (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, abogados)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 March 2018, Equivalenza Manufactory v EUIPO — ITM Entreprises (BLACK LABEL BY EQUIVALENZA) (T-6/17, not published, EU:T:2018:119);










2.


Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Equivalenza Manufactory SL before the General Court of the European Union in Case T–6/17;










3.


Orders Equivalenza Manufactory SL to bear its own costs relating both to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-6/17 and to the appeal proceedings and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in both of those proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 341, 24.9.2018.
Case T-180/19: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2020 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a beverage bottle — Earlier international design — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: beverage, designs and models, packaging product








C_2020137EN.01004901.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/49






Order of the General Court of 4 March 2020 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles)
(Case T-180/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a beverage bottle - Earlier international design - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2020/C 137/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bibita Group SHPK (Tirana, Albania) (represented by: C. Seyfert, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Benkomers OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 January 2019 (Case R 1070/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Bibita Group and Benkomers.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by Bibita Group SHPK.






(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Corrigendum to Recruitment Notice PE/242/S – Director (F/M) (Function group AD, grade 14) – Directorate-General for Innovation and Technological Support – Directorate for Publishing, Innovation and Data Management (Official Journal of the European Union C 65 A of 28 February 2020) 2020/C 70 I/01
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), data processing, innovation, job vacancy, managing director, publication








CI2020070EN.01000101.xml










4.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 70/1






Corrigendum to Recruitment Notice PE/242/S – Director (F/M) (Function group AD, grade 14) – Directorate-General for Innovation and Technological Support – Directorate for Publishing, Innovation and Data Management

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 65 A of 28 February 2020
)

(2020/C 70 I/01)
On page 57, point 2, ‘Place of employment’:
for:

‘Luxembourg.’,

read:

‘Brussels.’.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9703 — SCP/real) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 88/01
Date: 2020-03-04
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_2020088EN.01000101.xml










17.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9703 — SCP/real)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 88/01)
On 4 March 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 32020M9703. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 3 March 2020 2020/C 70/01
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020070EN.01000101.xml










4.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 70/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 March 2020
(2020/C 70/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1117 




JPY


Japanese yen


119,77 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4730 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87010 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5590 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0646 




ISK


Iceland króna


142,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3328 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,475 




HUF


Hungarian forint


336,68 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3166 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8087 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,8626 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6911 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4857 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6471 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7728 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5479 




KRW


South Korean won


1 327,59 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3245 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7572 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4853 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 877,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6758 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,467 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,0050 




THB


Thai baht


35,063 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,0032 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6599 




INR


Indian rupee


81,4290 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-34/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Telecommunication services — Implementation of provision of an open telecommunications network — Directive 97/13/EC — Fees and charges for individual licences — Transitional arrangements establishing a charge beyond those authorised by Directive 97/13/EC — Force of res judicata attaching to a higher court judgment considered contrary to EU law)
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement of EU law, payment, telecommunications, trade licence








C_2020161EN.01000902.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/9






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
(Case C-34/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Telecommunication services - Implementation of provision of an open telecommunications network - Directive 97/13/EC - Fees and charges for individual licences - Transitional arrangements establishing a charge beyond those authorised by Directive 97/13/EC - Force of res judicata attaching to a higher court judgment considered contrary to EU law)
(2020/C 161/13)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Telecom Italia SpA

Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 22(3) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services must be interpreted as precluding national legislation extending the obligation, in respect of 1998, imposed on a telecommunications undertaking holding an existing authorisation on the date of entry into force of that directive to pay a charge calculated on the basis of turnover and not merely the administrative costs incurred in the issue, management, control and enforcement of the applicable general authorisation scheme and individual licences;










2.


EU law must be interpreted as not requiring a national court to disapply domestic rules of procedure conferring finality on a judgment, even if to do so would make it possible to remedy an infringement of a provision of EU law, without prejudice to the possibility for the parties concerned of rendering the State liable in order to obtain legal protection of their rights under EU law.






(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Case C-586/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — Buonotourist Srl v European Commission, Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Appeal — Competition — State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) — European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market)
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Campania, Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, public transport, reimbursement of aid, road transport, service concession, services of general interest








C_2020161EN.01000701.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/7






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — Buonotourist Srl v European Commission, Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV)
(Case C-586/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - State aid - Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) - Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) - European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market)
(2020/C 161/09)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Buonotourist Srl (represented by: M. D'Alberti and L. Visone, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, P.-J. Loewenthal and L. Armati, acting as Agents), Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (represented by: M. Malena, avvocato)

Operative part

The Court






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Buonotourist Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case C-183/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk–Południe w Gdańsku — Poland) — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA — Recognition and enforcement of financial penalties imposed on legal persons — Incomplete transposition of a framework decision — Duty to interpret national law in accordance with EU law — Scope)
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, enforcement of ruling, fine, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, legal person, primacy of EU law








C_2020161EN.01000401.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/4






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk–Południe w Gdańsku — Poland) — Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB) v Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A.
(Case C-183/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA - Recognition and enforcement of financial penalties imposed on legal persons - Incomplete transposition of a framework decision - Duty to interpret national law in accordance with EU law - Scope)
(2020/C 161/05)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy Gdańsk–Południe w Gdańsku

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie (CJIB)

Defendant: Bank BGŻ BNP Paribas S.A. w Gdańsku

Intervener: Prokuratura Rejonowa Gdańsk-Śródmieście w Gdańsku

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The concept of ‘legal person’ set out, inter alia, in Article 1(a) and Article 9(3) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted in the light of the law of the issuing State of the decision imposing a financial penalty.










2.


Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that that it does not require a national court not to apply a provision of national law that is incompatible with Article 9(3) of Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision, since that provision is devoid of direct effect. Nevertheless, the referring court is required to give, as far as is possible, an interpretation of national law in accordance with EU law in order to ensure a result that is compatible with the aim pursued by Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299.






(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.
Case C-587/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA v European Commission, Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Appeal — Competition — State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) — European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market)
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Campania, Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, public transport, reimbursement of aid, road transport, service concession, services of general interest








C_2020161EN.01000702.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/7






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 — CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA v European Commission, Asstra Associazione Trasporti

(Case C-587/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - State aid - Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) - Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) - European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market)
(2020/C 161/10)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA (represented by: G. Capo and L. Visone, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, P. J. Loewenthal and L. Armati, acting as Agents), Asstra Associazione Trasporti (represented by: M. Malena, avvocato)

Operative part

The Court






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case C-123/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 March 2020 — Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design & Holding GmbH, WH
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: designs and models, motor vehicle, vehicle parts








C_2020215EN.01002001.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 March 2020 — Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design & Holding GmbH, WH
(Case C-123/20)
(2020/C 215/24)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ferrari SpA

Defendants: Mansory Design & Holding GmbH, WH

Questions referred







1.


Can unregistered Community designs in individual parts of a product arise as a result of disclosure of an overall image of a product in accordance with Article 11(1) and the first sentence of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002? (1)











2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
What legal criterion is to be applied for the purpose of assessing individual character in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) and Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 when determining the overall impression of a component part which — as in the case of a part of a vehicle’s bodywork, for example — is to be incorporated into a complex product? In particular, can the criterion be whether the appearance of the component part, as viewed by an informed user, is not completely lost in the appearance of the complex product, but rather displays a certain autonomy and consistency of form such that it is possible to identify an aesthetic overall impression which is independent of the overall form?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).
Case C-655/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Severna morska’ kam Agentsiya Mitnitsi, successor in law to Mitnitsa Varna v Schenker EOOD (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Removal from customs supervision — Theft of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure — Article 242 — Person responsible for the removal — Holder of the authorisation for customs warehousing — Penalty for failure to comply with the customs legislation — Article 42 — Obligation to pay a sum corresponding to the value of the missing goods — Combination with a pecuniary penalty — Proportionality)
Date: 2020-03-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, customs regulations, customs union, customs warehouse, fine, principle of proportionality, theft








C_2020161EN.01000801.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/8






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Severna morska’ kam Agentsiya Mitnitsi, successor in law to Mitnitsa Varna v Schenker EOOD
(Case C-655/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Removal from customs supervision - Theft of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure - Article 242 - Person responsible for the removal - Holder of the authorisation for customs warehousing - Penalty for failure to comply with the customs legislation - Article 42 - Obligation to pay a sum corresponding to the value of the missing goods - Combination with a pecuniary penalty - Proportionality)
(2020/C 161/11)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Severna morska’ kam Agentsiya Mitnitsi, successor in law to Mitnitsa Varna

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Schenker EOOD

Intervener: Okrazhna prokuratura — Varna

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, in the event of theft of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure, a pecuniary penalty is imposed on the holder of the customs warehousing authorisation for failure to comply with the customs legislation.










2.


Article 42(1) of Regulation No 952/2013 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in the event of removal from customs supervision of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure, the holder of the customs warehousing authorisation is required to pay, in addition to a pecuniary penalty, a sum corresponding to the value of those goods.






(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.