do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-135/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2020 — JS v Câmara Municipal de Gondomar
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: framework agreement, full-time employment, public institution, temporary employment, work contract








C_2020209EN.01001301.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 12 March 2020 — JS v Câmara Municipal de Gondomar
(Case C-135/20)
(2020/C 209/19)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: JS

Defendant: Câmara Municipal de Gondomar

Questions referred







1.


Should EU law, in particular Clause 5 of the framework agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which in all cases prohibits the conversion of fixed-term employment contracts concluded by public law entities into contracts of an indefinite duration?










2.


Should Directive 1999/70/EC be interpreted as requiring the conversion of the contracts as being the only means to prevent abuse arising from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts?






(1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).
Case C-583/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v DB Vertrieb GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Scope — Service contract — Article 2(6) — Contract for passenger transport services — Article 3(3)(k) — Cards conferring entitlement to price reductions when passenger transport contracts are subsequently concluded — Online selling of such cards without informing the consumer about the right of withdrawal)
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, contract of carriage, discount sale, electronic commerce, provision of services, reduced price, termination of a contract








C_2020215EN.01001102.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/11






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 12 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV v DB Vertrieb GmbH
(Case C-583/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Scope - Service contract - Article 2(6) - Contract for passenger transport services - Article 3(3)(k) - Cards conferring entitlement to price reductions when passenger transport contracts are subsequently concluded - Online selling of such cards without informing the consumer about the right of withdrawal)
(2020/C 215/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Verbraucherzentrale Berlin eV

Respondent: DB Vertrieb GmbH

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(6) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘service contract’ covers contracts whose object is to entitle the consumer to a price reduction when passenger transport contracts are subsequently concluded;










2.


Article 3(3)(k) of Directive 2011/83 must be interpreted as meaning that a contract whose object is to entitle the consumer to a price reduction when passenger transport contracts are subsequently concluded is not covered by the term ‘contract for passenger transport services’ and, consequently, falls within the scope of that directive, including of its provisions relating to the right of withdrawal.






(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9721 — APG/IRCP/Merkur) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 96/04
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy production, investment company, merger control, wind energy








C_2020096EN.01000401.xml










24.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 96/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9721 — APG/IRCP/Merkur)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 96/04)
On 12 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 32020M9721. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-236/19: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA (Action for annulment — Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) — Call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) — Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria — Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision — Application submitted by a de facto association — Capacity to be party to legal proceedings — No evidence of legal existence — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU financing, association, invitation to tender, legal status, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2020175EN.01002601.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/26






Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize v Commission and EACEA
(Case T-236/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Europe for Citizens Programme (2014-2020) - Call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) - Decision of the EACEA rejecting the applicant’s application for failure to meet the eligibility criteria - Commission’s decision rejecting the administrative action relating to the EACEA’s decision - Application submitted by a de facto association - Capacity to be party to legal proceedings - No evidence of legal existence - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 175/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Le Comité de Douzelage de Houffalize (Houffalize, Belgium) (represented by: A. Kettels, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and the ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and N. Durand, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for annulment or variation, first, of the EACEA’s decision of 25 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s application for a grant in respect of its call for applications ‘Town Twinning 2017, second deadline’ (EACEA 36/2014) and, secondly, of Commission Implementing Decision C (2019) 572 final of 4 February 2019, rejecting the administrative action brought by the applicant under Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


There is no need to rule on the objection of inadmissibility raised by the ‘Education, Audiovisual and Culture’ Executive Agency (EACEA).










3.


There is no need to rule on the EACEA’s application for leave to intervene.










4.


Le Comité du Douzelage de Houffalize shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission and the EACEA, with the exception of those relating to the application for leave to intervene.










5.


The EACEA shall bear its own costs in relation to the application for leave to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1966 of 27 November 2019 amending and correcting Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (Official Journal of the European Union L 307 of 28 November 2019)
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, chemical product, consumer information, cosmetic product, health risk, product safety








L_2020076EN.01003601.xml










12.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 76/36







Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2019/1966 of 27 November 2019 amending and correcting Annexes II, III and V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 307 of 28 November 2019
)


On page 20, point 2 of Annex 1 is replaced as follows:






“(2)


Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 is amended as follows:
Entry 98 is replaced by the following:













‘98


Benzoic acid, 2-hydroxy- (1)



Salicylic acid


69-72-7


200-712-3








(a)


Rinse-off hair products










(b)


Other products except body lotion, eye shadow, mascara, eyeliner, lipstick, roll-on deodorant












(a)


3,0 %










(b)


2,0 %






Not to be used in preparations for children under 3 years of age.
Not to be used in applications that may lead to exposure of the end-user’s lungs by inhalation.
Not to be used in oral products.
For purposes other than inhibiting the development of micro-organisms in the product. This purpose has to be apparent from the presentation of the product.


Not to be used for children under 3 years of age (2)











(1)  For use as a preservative see Annex V, No 3.

(2)  Solely for products which might be used for children under 3 years of age.’
            ”
Case T-353/19: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs — Earlier design — Proof of disclosure — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, foodstuff, packaging product








C_2020175EN.01002201.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/22






Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Gamma-A v EUIPO — Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss (Packaging for foodstuffs)
(Case T-353/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing packaging for foodstuffs - Earlier design - Proof of disclosure - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Article 6(1)(b) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
(2020/C 175/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gamma-A SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: M. Liguts, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Zivju pārstrādes uzņēmumu serviss SIA (Riga) (represented by: J. Alfejeva, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2019 (Case R 2543/2017-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Piejūra SIA and Gamma-A.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Gamma-A SIA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Case T-484/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — XB v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Remuneration — Household allowance — Dependent child allowance — Education and pre-school allowances — Eligibility — Rejection of applications for those allowances — Conditions of Short-Term Employment — Conditions and rules applicable to short-term employment contracts)
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, education grant, equal treatment, family benefit, remuneration of work, temporary employment








C_2020175EN.01001501.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/15






Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — XB v ECB
(Case T-484/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Household allowance - Dependent child allowance - Education and pre-school allowances - Eligibility - Rejection of applications for those allowances - Conditions of Short-Term Employment - Conditions and rules applicable to short-term employment contracts)
(2020/C 175/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: XB (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: D. Camilleri Podestà and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decisions of 6 November and 4 December 2017 refusing to grant certain allowances and, as required, of the ECB’s decisions of 2 February 2018 rejecting the request for administrative review and of 5 June 2018 rejecting the request for a grievance procedure and, secondly, an order that the ECB pay the sum corresponding to those allowances.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders XB to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Case T-215/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — QB v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Appraisal exercise — Appraisal report for 2016 — Author of the appraisal report — Manifest error of assessment — Sick leave — Redeployment — Remuneration — Decision not to award a salary increase — Competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a party — Liability)
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, pay rise, reintegration into working life, remuneration of work, sick leave, staff assessment








C_2020175EN.01001401.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/14






Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — QB v ECB
(Case T-215/18) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Appraisal exercise - Appraisal report for 2016 - Author of the appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Sick leave - Redeployment - Remuneration - Decision not to award a salary increase - Competence of the author of an act adversely affecting a party - Liability)
(2020/C 175/15)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: QB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and M. Rötting, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2016 and of the decision of the ECB of 23 May 2017 not to award her a salary increase and, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of the ECB of 18 September 2017 and of its implicit decision rejecting, respectively, the applicant’s administrative appeal and claim, and, second, compensation in respect of the harm that the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 23 May 2017 not to award QB a salary increase;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders QB to bear two thirds of her own costs;










4.


Orders the ECB to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by QB.






(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Case T-548/19: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki v EUIPO — Honda Motor (ONDA 1962)
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, maintenance, registered trade mark, shipbuilding, trade-mark law, vessel








C_2020175EN.01003601.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/36






Order of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Riginos Emporiki kai Mesitiki v EUIPO — Honda Motor (ONDA 1962)
(Case T-548/19) (1)

(2020/C 175/47)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Case C-659/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Instrucción n. 4 de Badalona — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against VW (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Directive 2013/48/EU — Article 3(2) — Right of access to a lawyer — Circumstances in which the right of access to a lawyer must be guaranteed — Non-appearance — Derogations from the right of access to a lawyer — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrest, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, lawyer, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020215EN.01001301.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/13






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Instrucción n. 4 de Badalona — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against VW
(Case C-659/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive 2013/48/EU - Article 3(2) - Right of access to a lawyer - Circumstances in which the right of access to a lawyer must be guaranteed - Non-appearance - Derogations from the right of access to a lawyer - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to effective judicial protection)
(2020/C 215/15)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Instrucción n. 4 de Badalona

Party in the main proceedings

VW

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, and in particular Article 3(2) thereof, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, as interpreted by national case-law, according to which the exercise of the right of access to a lawyer may, at the pre-trial stage, be delayed because the suspect or accused person has failed to appear following a summons to appear before an investigating judge until the national arrest warrant issued against the person concerned has been executed.


(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.
Case T-835/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Eurofer v Commission (Dumping — Imports of hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine — Termination of the proceedings against imports originating in Serbia — Determination of injury — Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from more than one country — Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 — Termination without measures — Article 9(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 — Final disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the imposition of definitive measures or the termination of an investigation or proceedings without the imposition of measures — Article 20(2) of Regulation 2016/1036)
Date: 2020-03-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Serbia, anti-dumping duty, flat product, import (EU), iron, originating product, steel








C_2020175EN.01001201.xml










25.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 175/12






Judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020 — Eurofer v Commission
(Case T-835/17) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine - Termination of the proceedings against imports originating in Serbia - Determination of injury - Cumulative assessment of the effects of imports from more than one country - Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 - Termination without measures - Article 9(2) of Regulation 2016/1036 - Final disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it is intended to recommend the imposition of definitive measures or the termination of an investigation or proceedings without the imposition of measures - Article 20(2) of Regulation 2016/1036)
(2020/C 175/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL (Brussels (Belgium)) (represented by: J. Killick and G. Forwood, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche, N. Kuplewatzky and A. Demeneix, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade (represented by: R. Luff, lawyer)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine and terminating the investigation on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Serbia (OJ 2017 L 258, p. 24).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL, to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade.






(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.