do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Guideline (EU) 2020/428 of the European Central Bank of 5 March 2020 repealing Guideline ECB/2012/16 on the Data Exchange for Cash Services (ECB/2020/12)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: European Central Bank
Subjects: banking, capital transfer, cash-in-transit, central bank, cross-frontier data flow, euro, euro area, exchange of information, information system








L_2020087EN.01000401.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 87/4








            GUIDELINE (EU) 2020/428 OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK
         
of 5 March 2020
         
repealing Guideline ECB/2012/16 on the Data Exchange for Cash Services (ECB/2020/12)


THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in particular Article 128(1) and (2) thereof,


Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 16 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Data Exchange for Cash Services (DECS) is an interface established by Guideline ECB/2012/16 (1) to maximise efficiency in and further harmonise cash transactions between national central banks of Member States whose currency is the euro (NCBs) and their clients in the euro area. As cash services currently offered by NCBs vary to a significant extent, DECS ensures the interchangeability of data for cross-border cash transactions and bulk transfers of euro banknotes between NCBs that use different cash management systems.












(2)


DECS was introduced by most NCBs between 2012 and 2015.












(3)


Since its introduction, DECS has not been used in relation to cash transactions between NCBs and their clients in the euro area, but that function nevertheless requires regular maintenance by the NCBs, which must be paid for out of public funds. DECS should therefore no longer be used to communicate data on cash transactions between NCBs and their clients in the euro area.












(4)


Messages concerning bulk transfers should continue to be exchanged between NCBs and internal arrangements should be made for that purpose.












(5)


Guideline ECB/2012/16 should therefore be repealed,





HAS ADOPTED THIS GUIDELINE:



Article 1

Repeal of Guideline ECB/2012/16

Guideline ECB/2012/16 is repealed with effect from 1 April 2020.


Article 2

Taking effect

This Guideline shall take effect on the day of its notification to the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro.


Article 3

Addressees

This Guideline is addressed to the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro.




Done at Frankfurt am Main, 5 March 2020.


For the Governing Council of the ECB


The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE
            





(1)  Guideline ECB/2012/16 of 20 July 2012 on the Data Exchange for Cash Services (OJ L 245, 11.9.2012, p. 3).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9626 — PKN Orlen/Energa) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 72/07
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy production, gas industry, merger control, oil industry, petroleum product, retail trade, wholesale trade








C_2020072EN.01000901.xml










5.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/9






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9626 — PKN Orlen/Energa)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 72/07)

1.   
On 26 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:






—


PKN Orlen S.A. (‘Orlen’, Poland),










—


Energa S.A. (‘Energa’, Poland).




Orlen acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Energa.
The concentration is accomplished by way of a public bid announced on 5 December 2019.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Orlen is an oil and gas company active on the wholesale and retail markets for refined oil products in Poland, Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany and Slovakia. It is also active in the generation and wholesale supply of electricity in Poland,










—


Energa is an energy company active in the generation and wholesale supply, distribution, and retail supply of electricity and other energy-related activities in Poland.






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.9626 — PKN Orlen/Energa
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’).
Case C-69/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — Credito Fondiario SpA v Single Resolution Board, Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Board (SRB) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Determination of the 2016 ex ante contribution — Action for annulment — Period within which proceedings must be commenced — Late submission — Plea of illegality — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU banking union, admissibility, aid to undertakings, banking supervision, company in difficulties, credit institution, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU)








C_2020161EN.01001101.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/11






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — Credito Fondiario SpA v Single Resolution Board, Italian Republic, European Commission
(Case C-69/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Board (SRB) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Determination of the 2016 ex ante contribution - Action for annulment - Period within which proceedings must be commenced - Late submission - Plea of illegality - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 161/15)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Credito Fondiario SpA (represented by: initially by F. Sciaudone, S. Frazzani, A. Neri and F. Iacovone, avvocati, and subsequently by F. Sciaudone, A. Neri and F. Iacovone, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: H. Ehlers, acting as Agent, and by S. Ianc, B. Meyring, T. Klupsch and S. Schelo, Rechtsanwälte, and by M. Caccialanza and A. Villani, avvocati), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and K. P. Wojcik and A. Steiblytė, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Credito Fondiario SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board;










3.


Orders the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Case C-766/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), M.J. Dairies EOOD (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Criteria for assessment — Applicability in the case of an earlier collective mark — Interdependence between the similarity of the trade marks at issue and that of the goods or services covered by those marks)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, foodstuff, milk product, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020161EN.01000901.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), M.J. Dairies EOOD
(Case C-766/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition - Article 8(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Criteria for assessment - Applicability in the case of an earlier collective mark - Interdependence between the similarity of the trade marks at issue and that of the goods or services covered by those marks)
(2020/C 161/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor, and K.K. Kleanthous)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent). M.J. Dairies EOOD (represented by: D. Dimitrova and I. Pakidanska, advokati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 September 2018, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — M. J. Dairies (BBQLOUMI) (T-328/17, not published, EU:T:2018:594);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case T-80/19: Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Dekoback v EUIPO — DecoPac (DECOPAC) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark DECOPAC — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Evidence — Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) — Right to be heard)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bakery, consultancy, decorative item, foodstuff, merchandising, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020137EN.01004702.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/47






Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — Dekoback v EUIPO — DecoPac (DECOPAC)
(Case T-80/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark DECOPAC - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Evidence - Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard)
(2020/C 137/74)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dekoback GmbH (Helmstadt-Bargen, Germany) (represented by: V. von Moers, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: DecoPac, Inc. (Anoka, Minnesota, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 November 2018 (Case R 1795/2017-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Dekoback and DecoPac.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dekoback GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9665 — General Real Estate/Apleona Real Estate/Property Management JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 83/01
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services, real estate business








C_2020083EN.01000101.xml










13.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 83/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9665 — General Real Estate/Apleona Real Estate/Property Management JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 83/01)
On 5 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 32020M9665. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-679/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — OPR-Finance s. r. o. v GK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Credit agreements for consumers — Article 8 — Creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness — National rules — Whether limitation may be invoked against the objection of nullity of the agreement raised by the consumer — Article 23 — Penalties — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature — National court — Examination by the court of its own motion as to whether that obligation has been complied with)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, financial situation, judicial review, limitation of legal proceedings








C_2020137EN.01001701.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/17






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — OPR-Finance s. r. o. v GK
(Case C-679/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Credit agreements for consumers - Article 8 - Creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness - National rules - Whether limitation may be invoked against the objection of nullity of the agreement raised by the consumer - Article 23 - Penalties - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature - National court - Examination by the court of its own motion as to whether that obligation has been complied with)
(2020/C 137/21)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Okresní soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OPR-Finance s. r. o.

Defendant: GK

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 8 and 23 of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as imposing an obligation on a national court to examine, of its own motion, whether there has been a failure to comply with the creditor’s pre-contractual obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness, provided for in Article 8 of that directive, and to draw the consequences arising under national law of a failure to comply with that obligation, on condition that they satisfy the requirements of Article 23. Articles 8 and 23 of Directive 2008/48 must also be interpreted as precluding national rules under which a failure by the creditor to comply with its pre-contractual obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness is penalised by the nullity of the credit agreement, linked with an obligation on the consumer to return the principal sum to the creditor at a time appropriate to the consumer’s financial capacity, solely on condition that that consumer raises an objection of such nullity within a three-year limitation period.


(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-144/20: Action brought on 5 March 2020 — Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan v Commission
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, ceramics, equal treatment, household article, import (EU), originating product, rights of the defence








C_2020161EN.01005301.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/53






Action brought on 5 March 2020 — Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan v Commission
(Case T-144/20)
(2020/C 161/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Guangxi Xin Fu Yuan Co. Ltd (Bobai, Chine) (represented by: J. Cornelis and T. Zuber, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2131 of 28 November 2019 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11 (2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s 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 violated Article 13 (3) in conjunction with Articles 5 (10) and 5 (11) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘basic Regulation’), along with Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 12.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by not including the Applicant in the exhaustive list of subject exporters in the regulation initiating the anti-circumvention investigation and then subsequently expanding the scope of the investigation to also cover the Applicant.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission did not have a legal basis for including the applicant in the Contested Regulation, as Article 13 (3) basic Regulation does not cover the imposition of anti-circumvention measures based on a mere risk of circumvention and moreover, requires the prior registration of all subject imports. In addition, the reasoning that the Commission did provide is logically flawed, unsubstantiated and disregards essential evidence and therefore represents a manifest error of assessment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the rights of defence of the applicant and violated the principle of non-discrimination by basing its final decision on two new factual elements on which the applicant had no opportunity to comment during the review investigation.
Case T-796/19 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — HB v Commission (Application for interim measures — Public service contracts — Irregularities in the contract award procedure — Recovery of sums already paid — Debit note — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, claim, enforcement of ruling, financial regulation, general budget (EU), interest, limitation of legal proceedings, principle of proportionality, reduced price, rights of the defence








C_2020137EN.01005101.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/51






Order of the President of the General Court of 5 March 2020 — HB v Commission
(Case T-796/19 R)
(Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Irregularities in the contract award procedure - Recovery of sums already paid - Debit note - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency)
(2020/C 137/80)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HB (represented by: M. Vandenbussche and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2019) 7318 final of 15 October 2019 to reduce the amounts due under contract TACIS/2006/101-510 and to recover the amounts unduly paid.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9749 — Glencore Energy UK/Ørsted LNG Business) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 72/06
Date: 2020-03-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas pipeline, merger control, natural gas, natural resources, primary product, storage of hydrocarbons








C_2020072EN.01000801.xml










5.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9749 — Glencore Energy UK/Ørsted LNG Business)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 72/06)

1.   
On 25 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:






—


Glencore Energy UK Ltd, controlled by Glencore plc (‘Glencore’, Switzerland).










—


Ørsted’s LNG Business, controlled by Ørsted A/S (‘Ørsted’, Denmark).




Glencore Energy acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Ørsted’s LNG Business. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Glencore: it is a large global diversified natural resource company and a major producer and marketer of several commodities,










—


for Ørsted’s LNG Business: it comprises contractual arrangements for liquefied natural gas (‘LNG’) storage, re-gasification capacity and transmission services at the Gate Terminal in the Netherlands and a number of LNG sale and purchase agreements.






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.9749 — Glencore Energy UK/Ørsted LNG 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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.