do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9765 — AustralianSuper/Peel Group/DWS/Peel Ports) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 113/01
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, harbour installation, investment company, maritime transport, merger control, provision of services








C_2020113EN.01000101.xml










6.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9765 — AustralianSuper/Peel Group/DWS/Peel Ports)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 113/01)
On 23 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 32020M9765. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-169/20: Action brought on 23 March 2020 — Marina Yachting Brand Management Company v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear Company (MARINA YACHTING)
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020191EN.01002502.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/25






Action brought on 23 March 2020 — Marina Yachting Brand Management Company v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear Company (MARINA YACHTING)
(Case T-169/20)
(2020/C 191/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marina Yachting Brand Management Company Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt and P. Böhner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industries Sportswear Company SRL (Venice, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MARINA YACHTING — European Union trade mark No 11 111 317

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation of register entry

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 in Joined Cases R 252/2019-2 and R 253/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 103(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-280/19: Order of the General Court of 23 March 2020 — Highgate Capital Management v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Complaint — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, State aid, acquisition of property, admissibility, aid for restructuring, bank, control of State aid








C_2020191EN.01001402.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/14






Order of the General Court of 23 March 2020 — Highgate Capital Management v Commission
(Case T-280/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Complaint - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 191/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Highgate Capital Management LLP (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Struys, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck, A. Bouchagiar and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting a complaint relating to unlawful State aid granted to Eurobank Ergasias SA through the acquisition of Piraeus Bank Bulgaria (SA.53105), allegedly contained in the letter of 8 March 2019 from the Commission’s Directorate-General for Competition and in the public statement of 20 March 2019 of the Commissioner responsible for competition.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the application to intervene of the Hellenic Financial Stability Fund.










3.


Highgate Capital Management LLP shall pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures, with the exception of those relating to the application to intervene.










4.


The Hellenic Financial Stability Fund shall bear its own costs relating to the application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 20 March 2020 2020/C 94/01
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020094EN.01000101.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 94/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 March 2020
(2020/C 94/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0707 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,37 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4691 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91028 




SEK


Swedish krona


11,0598 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0546 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


12,1215 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,191 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,91 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5315 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8505 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,9806 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,8226 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5257 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,3056 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8521 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5515 




KRW


South Korean won


1 335,64 




ZAR


South African rand


18,5127 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5919 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,6098 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 050,90 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7052 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,895 




RUB


Russian rouble


85,1038 




THB


Thai baht


34,851 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,3937 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,6864 




INR


Indian rupee


80,4650 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-147/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2020 — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Abacus Medicine A/S
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labelling, medicinal product, packaging, product designation, trade mark








C_2020215EN.01002201.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2020 — Novartis Pharma GmbH v Abacus Medicine A/S
(Case C-147/20)
(2020/C 215/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Novartis Pharma GmbH

Defendant: Abacus Medicine A/S

Questions referred







1.


Can it lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice if the safety features of original outer wrapping/original packaging which are provided for under Article 54(o) and Article 47a of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) can, in the event that the parallel trader retains that original packaging, be replaced in compliance with Article 47a(1)(b) of that directive only in such a way that visible traces of opening remain after the originally existing safety features have been partly or fully removed and/or covered?










2.


Is it of significance for answering the first question whether the traces of opening become visible only when the medicinal product has been thoroughly inspected by wholesalers and/or persons authorised or entitled to supply medicinal products to the public, such as pharmacies, in fulfilment of their obligation under Articles 10, 24 and 30 of Regulation (EU) 2016/161, (2) or may be overlooked in a superficial inspection?










3.


Is it of significance for answering the first question whether the signs of opening become visible only when the packaging of a medicinal product is opened, for example by the patient?










4.


Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EU) 2016/161 to be interpreted as meaning that the barcode containing the unique identifier within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of that regulation must be printed directly on the packaging, so that Article 5(3) is not complied with if a parallel trader affixes the unique identifier to the original outer packaging using an additional external sticker?






(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/161 of 2 October 2015 supplementing Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council by laying down detailed rules for the safety features appearing on the packaging of medicinal products for human use (OJ 2016 L 32, p. 1).
DG Energy news. March 2020.
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy
Subjects: energy distribution, energy industry, energy policy, energy supply, serial publication, sustainable development

If you have trouble reading this e -mail read the online version . | ISSN 2529-4857   

March 2020   

DG Energy News 

In focus  

Renewable energy in Europe  

Renewable energy plays a key role in 
achieving the EU's energy and climate 
objectives, and will help make our energy 
systems more affordable and secure for 
citizens. 

More  

Other news  

€980 million funding for clean energy infrastructure  

More  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
Investment Plan supports its first wind farm project in 
Poland  

More  

New energy performance of buildings directive kicks in  

More  

Mastering the power of the sun: EU-Japan fusion exchange  

More  

Canada-EU exchange on energy efficiency  

More  

Renewables the top source in EU electricity generation  

More  

Upcoming events  

Cancellation of events  

Due to the restrictions related to COVID-19, events in most regions in 
the EU have been called off in the coming weeks. For meetings 
organised by the European Commission, we will regularly update the 
event section of the DG Energy website.  

 
 
 
 
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
More  

Workshop: Strategic plan to reduce methane emissions in 
the energy sector  

Date 

20/03/2020 - 20/03/2020  

Venue 

Online  

More  

Building the energy system of a climate-neutral Europe: An 
EU strategy for smart sector integration (cancelled)  

Date 

03/04/2020 - 03/04/2020  

More  

34th Madrid Forum (cancelled)  

Date 

29/03/2020  

More  

Meeting of the European Electricity Regulatory Forum 
(cancelled)  

Date 

07/05/2020 - 08/05/2020  

More  

 
 
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
   
   
Latest studies, publications and consultations  

Assessment and roadmap for digital transformation of the 
energy sector towards an innovative internal energy 
market  

More  

Broader Approach: Cutting-edge fusion energy research 
activities  

More  

Consultation to establish the priority list of network codes  

Deadline 

14/04/2020  

More  

DG Energy  

Commissioner for energy Kadri Simson  

The European Green Deal  

Clean energy for all Europeans  

© European Union 2020 - Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

If this newsletter was forwarded to you and you would like to receive it directly you can subscribe 
here. 

Catalogue number: MJ-AF-20-003-EN-N  

You can unsubscribe from this newsletter from your profile. 

Energy4Europe on Twitter
Case C-141/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2020 — Finanzamt Kiel v Norddeutsche Gesellschaft für Diakonie mbH
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, VAT, holding company, tax collection, tax law, taxpayer








C_2020222EN.01001701.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2020 — Finanzamt Kiel v Norddeutsche Gesellschaft für Diakonie mbH
(Case C-141/20)
(2020/C 222/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Kiel

Defendant: Norddeutsche Gesellschaft für Diakonie mbH

Questions referred







1.


Is the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) in conjunction with Article 21(1)(a) and Article 21(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (Directive 77/388/EEC) to be interpreted as permitting a Member State to designate, instead of the VAT group (‘Organkreis’, group treated as a single entity for tax purposes), a member of the VAT group (‘Organträger’, controlling company) as the taxable person?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the negative: Can the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) in conjunction with Article 21(1)(a) and Article 21(3) of Directive 77/388/EEC be invoked in this regard?










3.


Must a strict or lenient standard be applied in the assessment to be carried out in accordance with paragraph 46 of the Larentia + Minerva judgment (2) of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015, C-108/14 and C-109/14 (EU:C:2015:496, paragraph 44 and 45), as to whether the requirement of financial integration contained in the first sentence of point 2 of Paragraph 2(2) of the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover tax) constitutes a permissible measure which is necessary and appropriate for attaining the objectives seeking to prevent abusive practices or behaviour or to combat tax evasion or tax avoidance?










4.


Are Article 4(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Directive 77/388/EEC to be interpreted as permitting a Member State to regard a person as not being independent within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Directive 77/388/EEC if that person is integrated into the undertaking of another undertaking (‘Organträger’, controlling company) in financial, economic and organisational terms in such a way that the controlling company is able to impose its will on the person and thus prevent the person from forming his own will, which diverges from that of the controlling company?






(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

(2)  Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 July 2015 (C-108/14 and C-109/14, EU:C:2015:496).
Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/435 of 23 March 2020 amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Bosnia and Herzegovina, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions








L_2020089EN.01000401.xml










24.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 89/4








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2020/435
of 23 March 2020
         
amending Decision 2011/173/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/173/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.












(2)


On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/173/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 31 March 2021.












(3)


Decision 2011/173/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The second paragraph of Article 6 of Decision 2011/173/CFSP is replaced by the following:


                  ‘This Decision shall apply until 31 March 2021.’.



Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 23 March 2020.


For the Council


The President

A. METELKO-ZGOMBIĆ
            





(1)  Council Decision 2011/173/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina (OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 68).
Case T-173/20: Action brought on 23 March 2020 — Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Company v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear Company (Henry Cotton’s)
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, clothing, cosmetic product, footwear industry, leather, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020191EN.01002802.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/28






Action brought on 23 March 2020 — Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Company v EUIPO — Industries Sportswear Company (Henry Cotton’s)
(Case T-173/20)
(2020/C 191/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Henry Cotton’s Brand Management Company Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, C. Eckhartt and P. Böhner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industries Sportswear Company SRL (Venice, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Henry Cotton’s — European Union trade mark No 821 769 and No 2 580 728

Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation of register entry

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2020 in Joined Cases R 254/2019-2 and R 255/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 103(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 27(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-159/20: Action brought on 23 March 2020 — JB v Cedefop
Date: 2020-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, demotion, indemnification, pay scale, promotion, right to justice, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020201EN.01003001.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/30






Action brought on 23 March 2020 — JB v Cedefop
(Case T-159/20)
(2020/C 201/42)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: JB (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (‘CEDEFOP’)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul CEDEFOP’s implied rejection decision of 19 January 2020;










—


order CEDEFOP to pay to the applicant the total sum of EUR 442 276,78.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to sound administration by reason of the examination of the applicant's claim for compensation by an official of CEDEFOP with the status of an incriminating witness; infringement of Article 11a of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’).










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the presumption of innocence in the context of the examination of the applicant’s request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, as confirmed by the implied decision rejecting the complaint lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant downgraded the applicant professionally and decided not to promote her, in breach of the Staff Regulations and the principle of impartiality.