do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-670/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — CO v Comune di Gesturi (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78/EC — Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age — Public call for expressions of interest — Conditions of participation — Exclusion of retired public-sector and private-sector employees)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, allocation of work, consultancy, employment policy, equal treatment, labour market, private sector, public sector, retired person








C_2020230EN.01000602.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/6






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna — Italy) — CO v Comune di Gesturi
(Case C-670/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principle of equal treatment in employment and occupation - Directive 2000/78/EC - Prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of age - Public call for expressions of interest - Conditions of participation - Exclusion of retired public-sector and private-sector employees)
(2020/C 230/07)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sardegna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CO

Defendant: Comune di Gesturi

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, in particular Article 2(2), Article 3(1) and Article 6(1) thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation prohibiting public administrative authorities from awarding analysis and consultancy roles to retired persons in so far as, first, that legislation pursues a legitimate employment policy and labour market objective and, second, the means deployed to achieve that objective are appropriate and necessary. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is in fact the case in the main proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case C-390/19 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — Italian Republic v European Commission, French Republic, Hungary (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Sugar sector — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic — Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, sugar industry








C_2020287EN.01001702.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/17






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — Italian Republic v European Commission, French Republic, Hungary
(Case C-390/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Sugar sector - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic - Appeal, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded)
(2020/C 287/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by C. Colelli and M.F. Severi, avvocatti dello Stato)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents), French Republic, Hungary

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.










2.


The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Case T-163/20: Action brought on 2 April 2020 — Isopix v Parliament
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: artistic profession, award of contract, damages, equal treatment, invitation to tender, photograph, services contract, tendering








C_2020191EN.01002401.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/24






Action brought on 2 April 2020 — Isopix v Parliament
(Case T-163/20)
(2020/C 191/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Isopix SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: P. Van den Bulck and J. Fahner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Parliament’s decision communicated by letter of 24 March 2020 informing the applicant that its tender for public contract COMM/DG/AWD/2019/854 had not been accepted and that that contract had been awarded to another tenderer;










—


order the Parliament to reconsider the tenders; in the alternative, order the Parliament to pay the applicant damages for the harm suffered as a result of the loss of an opportunity to be awarded the contract and for the costs and expenses incurred in participating in that tendering procedure;










—


order the Parliament to produce the tender analysis report;










—


order the Parliament to pay all of the costs.





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 an infringement of the obligation to state reasons. The applicant submits that the letters sent by the Parliament do not constitute a statement of reasons which complies with the requirements of the General Financial Regulation, on the ground that they do not set out the qualitative benefits of the successful tender, information in relation to the price criterion, or the final score received by the applicant’s tender.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principles of transparency and equal treatment. The applicant submits that its tender, which was prepared specially to be displayed on a screen, was considered on the basis of a paper version contrary to the provisions of the invitation to tender. Accordingly, a crucial part of the file was not taken into consideration, contrary to the requirements of transparency and equal treatment.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of the duty of care. According to the applicant, the Parliament failed to comply with its duty of care to verify whether the photographers whose CVs were submitted in the successful tenderer’s tender had agreed to work in Brussels and Strasbourg.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Parliament committed a manifest error of assessment by not excluding the successful tenderer’s tender even though it was incompatible with the selection criterion requiring that the tenderer have a team of at least 15 people for lot 1 and 12 people for lot 2.
Case C-20/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom to provide services — Direct life assurance — Directive 2002/83/EC — Articles 35 and 36 — Right of cancellation and cancellation period — Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation — Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation — Lapse of the right of cancellation — Relevance of the policy holder’s status as ‘consumer’)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract terms, freedom to provide services, insurance contract, life assurance, termination of a contract








C_2020230EN.01000901.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/9






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — kunsthaus muerz gmbh v Zürich Versicherungs AG
(Case C-20/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom to provide services - Direct life assurance - Directive 2002/83/EC - Articles 35 and 36 - Right of cancellation and cancellation period - Incorrect information concerning the detailed rules for exercising the right of cancellation - Formal requirements for the declaration of cancellation - Lapse of the right of cancellation - Relevance of the policy holder’s status as ‘consumer’)
(2020/C 230/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: kunsthaus muerz gmbh

Defendant: Zürich Versicherungs AG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 35 and 36 of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance must be interpreted as meaning that they are also applicable to a policy holder who does not have the status of consumer and that that they do not preclude national legislation under which the period for exercising the right to cancel the effects of a life assurance contract starts to run from the date on which that contract was concluded, even though the information concerning the detailed rules for exercising that right of cancellation provided by the insurance company to that policy holder indicates formal requirements which are in fact not required by the national law applicable to that contract, provided that such information does not deprive that policy holder of the option of exercising that right, in essence under the same conditions as those which would have prevailed if the information had been correct. It is for the referring court to assess, on the basis of an overall assessment taking into account, inter alia, the national legislative context and the facts in the main proceedings, including that the policy holder may be a consumer, whether the error contained in the information provided to the policy holder deprived him of that option.


(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Case T-307/19: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — SQlab v EUIPO (Innerbarend) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Innerbarend — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2020201EN.01002301.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/23






Order of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — SQlab v EUIPO (Innerbarend)
(Case T-307/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Innerbarend - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2020/C 201/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: SQlab GmbH (Taufkirchen, Germany) (represented by: A. Koelle, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2019 (Case R 2180/2018-4) relating to an application for registration of the word sign Innerbarend as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


SQlab GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 230, 8.7.2019.
Case C-753/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim), Svenska Artisters och musikers, intresseorganisation ek. för. (SAMI) v Fleetmanager Sweden AB, Nordisk Biluthyrning AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 3(1) — Directive 2006/115/EC — Article 8(2) — Concept of ‘communication to the public’ — Undertaking hiring out cars each having a radio receiver as standard equipment)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, literary and artistic property, radio equipment, vehicle rental








C_2020222EN.01001202.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/12






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim), Svenska Artisters och musikers, intresseorganisation ek. för. (SAMI) v Fleetmanager Sweden AB, Nordisk Biluthyrning AB
(Case C-753/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 3(1) - Directive 2006/115/EC - Article 8(2) - Concept of ‘communication to the public’ - Undertaking hiring out cars each having a radio receiver as standard equipment)
(2020/C 222/13)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå u.p.a. (Stim), Svenska Artisters och musikers, intresseorganisation ek. för. (SAMI)

Defendants: Fleetmanager Sweden AB, Nordisk Biluthyrning AB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society and Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property must be interpreted as meaning that the hiring out of motor vehicles equipped with radio receivers does not constitute a communication to the public within the meaning of those provisions.


(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Case T-546/19: Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Isigny-Sainte Mère v EUIPO (Shape of a golden container with a type of wave) (EU trade mark — Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark — Shape of a golden container with a type of wave — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Lack of distinctive character)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, butter, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020191EN.01001201.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/12






Judgment of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — Isigny-Sainte Mère v EUIPO (Shape of a golden container with a type of wave)
(Case T-546/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a golden container with a type of wave - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Lack of distinctive character)
(2020/C 191/15)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Isigny-Sainte Mère (Isigny-sur-Mer, France) (represented by: D. Mallo Saint-Jalmes, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2019 (Case R 1513/2018-5), concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign comprising the shape of a golden container with a type of wave as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The action is dismissed;










2.


Isigny-Sainte Mère is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Winding-up proceedings Decision to start winding-up proceedings in respect of CBL Insurance Europe Designated Activity Company (the ‘Company’) (Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)) 2020/C 110/05
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, insurance company, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2020110EN.01000601.xml










2.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 110/6






Winding-up proceedings
Decision to start winding-up proceedings in respect of CBL Insurance Europe Designated Activity Company (the ‘Company’)


(Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))


(2020/C 110/05)






Insurance undertaking







CBL Insurance Europe Designated Activity Company




13 Fitzwilliam Street Upper




Dublin 2




D02 V045




IRELAND








Date, entry into force and nature of decision


Date: 12 March 2020
Date of entry into force: 20 February 2020
Nature of Decision: to appoint Kieran Wallace and Cormac O’Connor of KPMG as joint liquidators of the Company




Competent authorities







The High Court




Four Courts




Inns Quay




Dublin 7




IRELAND








Supervisory authority







Central Bank of Ireland




New Wapping Street




North Wall Quay




Dublin 1




D01 F7X3




IRELAND








Administrator appointed


Joint Liquidators Kieran Wallace and Cormac O’Connor of KPMG





KPMG




1 Stokes Place




St Stephen’s Green




Dublin 2




IRELAND




kieran.wallace@kpmg.ie




cormac.oconnor@kpmg.ie








Applicable law


Ireland
Companies Act 2014
Insurance Acts 1909 to 2009
European Union (Insurance and Reinsurance) Regulations 2015 [S.I. No 485 of 2015]
Case C-228/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Article 101(1) TFEU — Card payment systems — Interbank agreement fixing the level of interchange fees — Agreement restricting competition ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’)
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, bank charges, electronic money, payment system, restriction on competition, unlawful agreement








C_2020222EN.01000601.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/6






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gazdasági Versenyhivatal v Budapest Bank Nyrt. and Others
(Case C-228/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Article 101(1) TFEU - Card payment systems - Interbank agreement fixing the level of interchange fees - Agreement restricting competition ‘by object’ and ‘by effect’ - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’)
(2020/C 222/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

Respondents: Budapest Bank Nyrt., ING Bank NV Magyarországi Fióktelepe, OTP Bank Nyrt., Kereskedelmi és Hitelbank Zrt., Magyar Külkereskedelmi Bank Zrt., ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt., Visa Europe Ltd, MasterCard Europe SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the same anticompetitive conduct from being regarded as having as both its object and its effect the restriction of competition, within the meaning of that provision.










2.


Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that an interbank agreement which fixes at the same amount the interchange fee payable, where a payment transaction by card takes place, to the banks issuing such cards offered by card payment services companies operating on the national market concerned cannot be classified as an agreement which has ‘as [its] object’ the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, within the meaning of that provision, unless that agreement, in the light of its wording, its objectives and its context, can be regarded as posing a sufficient degree of harm to competition to be classified thus, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.






(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Case T-320/19: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — BV v Commission
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU budget, budgetary resources, interest, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2020201EN.01005503.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/55






Order of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — BV v Commission
(Case T-320/19) (1)

(2020/C 201/72)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Case C-384/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Flood risk assessment and management — Directive 2007/60/EC — Article 7(1) and (5), Article 10(1) and (2) and Article 15(1) — Flood risk management plan — Establishment — Public consultation and information — Making available to the European Commission — River basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura, ES 123 Lanzarote, ES 124 Tenerife, ES 125 La Palma, ES 126 La Gomera and ES 127 El Hierro (Spain))
Date: 2020-04-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Canary Islands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental risk prevention, flood, infringement procedure (EU), public awareness campaign








C_2020230EN.01001301.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/13






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 April 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-384/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Flood risk assessment and management - Directive 2007/60/EC - Article 7(1) and (5), Article 10(1) and (2) and Article 15(1) - Flood risk management plan - Establishment - Public consultation and information - Making available to the European Commission - River basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura, ES 123 Lanzarote, ES 124 Tenerife, ES 125 La Palma, ES 126 La Gomera and ES 127 El Hierro (Spain))
(2020/C 230/17)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, and subsequently by M. Jauregui Gomez and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by S. Jiménez García, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to establish, publish and notify to the European Commission the flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura, ES 123 Lanzarote, ES 124 Tenerife, ES 125 La Palma, ES 126 La Gomera and ES 127 El Hierro (Spain), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks; and by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to complete the public consultation and information on the elaboration of flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES 120 Gran Canaria, ES 122 Fuerteventura and ES 125 La Palma, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of that directive.










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.