do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-176/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — SC Avio Lucos SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU direct payments, aid to agriculture, grassland, livestock farming, single payment scheme, tenant farming, utilised agricultural area








C_2020297EN.01002002.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — SC Avio Lucos SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central
(Case C-176/20)
(2020/C 297/27)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SC Avio Lucos SRL

Defendants: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Dolj, Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură (APIA) — Aparat Central

Questions referred







1.


Does Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (1) preclude national legislation which establishes that the minimum activity to be carried out on agricultural areas normally kept in a state suitable for grazing is to consist in grazing with animals used by a farmer?










2.


In so far as the abovementioned law [of the European Union] does not preclude the national legislation referred to in Question 1, may the respective provisions of Article 4(1)(a) and (c), and of Article 9(1), of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of 17 December 2013 be interpreted as meaning that a legal person who has concluded a concession contract in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings and who keeps animals under loan-for-use contracts concluded with physical persons, by which the lenders entrust to the borrowers, free of charge, the animals which they keep as owners, for the purpose of use for grazing, on the pastureland made available to the borrowers and over the agreed periods of time, may be regarded as an ‘active farmer’?










3.


Must Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (2) be interpreted as meaning that artificial conditions also cover the case of a concession contract and loan-for-use contracts such as those at issue in the main proceedings?






(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.
Case C-179/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Guvernul României, SC Complexul Energetic Hunedoara SA, in liquidation, Compania Națională de Transport al Energiei Electrice ‘Transelectrica’ SA, SC Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy grid, energy production, market access, public sector








C_2020297EN.01002101.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 7 April 2020 — Fondul Proprietatea SA v Guvernul României, SC Complexul Energetic Hunedoara SA, in liquidation, Compania Națională de Transport al Energiei Electrice ‘Transelectrica’ SA, SC Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA
(Case C-179/20)
(2020/C 297/28)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel București

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fondul Proprietatea SA

Defendants: Guvernul României, SC Complexul Energetic Hunedoara SA, in liquidation, Compania Națională de Transport al Energiei Electrice ‘Transelectrica’ SA, SC Complexul Energetic Oltenia SA

Intervener: Ministerul Economiei, Energiei și Mediului de Afaceri

Questions referred







(a)


Does the adoption by the Romanian State of a legislative act which, for the benefit of two companies of which the State is the majority shareholder, provides for:






a.1.


the grant of priority access to dispatching and an obligation for the transmission system operator to purchase ancillary services from those companies, and










a.2.


the grant of guaranteed access to the electricity grid for the electricity produced by those two companies, such as to ensure that they can operate continuously,
constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU, that is to say, is it a measure funded by the State or through State resources, is it selective in nature and may it affect trade between Member States? If so, is such State aid subject to notification as provided for by Article 108(3) TFEU?














(b)


Is the grant by the Romanian State of a right of guaranteed access to the electricity grid to two companies of which the State is the majority shareholder, such as to ensure that they can operate continuously, consistent with the provisions of Article 15(4) of Directive 2009/72/EC? (1)







(1)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).
Case C-178/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) lodged on 7 April 2020 — Pharma Expressz Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, drugs classification, market approval, medicinal product, public health, quantitative restriction








C_2020279EN.01002402.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary)) lodged on 7 April 2020 — Pharma Expressz Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet
(Case C-178/20)
(2020/C 279/34)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pharma Expressz Szolgáltató és Kereskedelmi Kft

Defendant: Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

Questions referred







1.


Does an obligation flow from Articles 70 to 73 of Directive 2001/83 (1) to regard a medicinal product which can be dispensed without medical prescription in one Member State as a medicinal product which can also be dispensed without medical prescription in another Member State, including where, in that other Member State, the medicinal product in question does not have a marketing authorisation and has not been classified?










2.


Is a quantitative restriction which makes the possibility of ordering and dispensing to a patient a medicinal product which does not have a marketing authorisation in one Member State but does have such an authorisation in another [Member State of the EEA] conditional on the existence of a medical prescription and a declaration from the pharmaceutical authority, including where the medicinal product is registered in the other Member State as a medicinal product not subject to medical prescription, justified in the interests of protection of the health and life of humans, as referred to in Article 36 TFEU?






(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).
Case T-183/20: Action brought on 7 April 2020 — Schneider v EUIPO — Raths (Teslaplatte)
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, metal product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020191EN.01003202.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/32






Action brought on 7 April 2020 — Schneider v EUIPO — Raths (Teslaplatte)
(Case T-183/20)
(2020/C 191/44)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Christian Schneider (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: R. Buttron, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Oliver Raths (Männedorf, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark Teslaplatte — EU trade mark No 11 222 155

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 in Case R 247/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


alter the contested decision to the effect that the appeal by the party concerned dated 28 January 2019 is dismissed in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9507 – Salini Impregilo/Astaldi) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 123/04
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control, provision of services








C_2020123EN.01000401.xml










16.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9507 – Salini Impregilo/Astaldi)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 123/04)
On 7 April 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 32020M9507. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/541 of 7 April 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ (PGI))
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Hungary, Western Transdanubia, cows’ milk cheese, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2020121EN.01000301.xml










20.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 121/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/541
of 7 April 2020
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Hungary’s application to register the name ‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Győr-Moson-Sopron megyei Csemege sajt’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.3. – Cheeses, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


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




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 7 April 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 408, 4.12.2019, p. 8.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-158/20 P: Appeal brought on 7 April 2020 by Jean Whitehead and David Evans against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2020 in Case T-541/19, Shindler and Others v Council
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, European election, United Kingdom, freedom of movement, national, residence, right to vote, withdrawal from the EU








C_2021009EN.01000301.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/3






Appeal brought on 7 April 2020 by Jean Whitehead and David Evans against the order of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2020 in Case T-541/19, Shindler and Others v Council
(Case C-158/20 P)
(2021/C 9/03)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: Jean Whitehead, David Evans (represented by: J. Fouchet, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Harry Shindler, Douglas Edward Watson, David Maxwell Anstead, Ross Adrian Bailey
By order of 1 October 2020 the Court (Ninth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.
Case C-177/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2020 — ‘Grossmania’ Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, administrative procedure, application of the law, infringement of EU law, judicial proceedings, preliminary ruling procedure








C_2020279EN.01002401.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 7 April 2020 — ‘Grossmania’ Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal
(Case C-177/20)
(2020/C 279/33)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Grossmania’ Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal

Question referred

Must Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, where the Court of Justice of the European Union, in a decision given in preliminary ruling proceedings, has declared a legislative provision of a Member State to be incompatible with EU law, that legislative provision cannot be applied in subsequent national administrative or judicial proceedings either, notwithstanding that the facts of the subsequent proceedings are not entirely identical to those of the previous preliminary ruling proceedings?
Case T-190/20: Action brought on 7 April 2020 — Almea v EUIPO — Sanacorp Pharmahandel (Almea)
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, baby food, cosmetic product, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020191EN.01003601.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/36






Action brought on 7 April 2020 — Almea v EUIPO — Sanacorp Pharmahandel (Almea)
(Case T-190/20)
(2020/C 191/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Almea Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Furneaux and E. Humphreys, Solicitors)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanacorp Pharmahandel GmbH (Planegg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark Almea — Application for registration No 14 030 126

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 in Case R 246/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


decide on costs for the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-180/20: Action brought on 7 April 2020 — JE v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: United Kingdom, intergovernmental conference (EU), member of the Court of Justice (EU), withdrawal from the EU








C_2020201EN.01003501.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/35






Action brought on 7 April 2020 — JE v Council and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
(Case T-180/20)
(2020/C 201/47)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: JE (represented by: N. Forwood, QC)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Conference of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the Declaration of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States on the consequences of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Advocates-General of the Court of Justice of the European Union, dated 29 January 2020, as published by the Council under Council document reference XT 21018/20;










—


order the defendants to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant contends that the act adopted by the defendants should be partially annulled on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties and rules of law relation to their application, and for misuse of powers.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9753 – Hexcel/Woodward) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 115/02
Date: 2020-04-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: advanced materials, aeronautical industry, aerospace industry, defence policy, economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, secondary sector








C_2020115EN.01000201.xml










7.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 115/2






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9753 – Hexcel/Woodward)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 115/02)

1.   
On 27 March 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Hexcel Corporation (‘Hexcel’, US),










—


Woodward, Inc. (‘Woodward’, US).




Hexcel enters into a full merger within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a) of the Merger Regulation with Woodward.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Hexcel: development, manufacture and supply of lightweight, high-performance structural materials, including carbon fibres, specialty reinforcements, ‘prepregs’, and other fibre-reinforced matrix materials, adhesives and composite structures, for use in commercial aerospace, space and defence, and other industrial sectors,










—


for Woodward: design, manufacture, supply and servicing of control solutions for the aerospace and other industrial sectors.






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.9753 – Hexcel/Woodward
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.