do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-437/18: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Agriculture — Export refunds — Poultrymeat — Annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 by a judgment of the Court of Justice — Damage)
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common organisation of markets, damages, export (EU), export refund, poultrymeat








C_2020201EN.01002001.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/20






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Tilly-Sabco v Commission
(Case T-437/18) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Agriculture - Export refunds - Poultrymeat - Annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 by a judgment of the Court of Justice - Damage)
(2020/C 201/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and B. Hofstötterer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tilly-Sabco to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9811 – Franklin Resources/Legg Mason) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 150/02
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, provision of services








C_2020150EN.01000201.xml










6.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 150/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9811 – Franklin Resources/Legg Mason)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 150/02)
On 29 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 32020M9811. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-108/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense By Kerry) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense By Kerry — Earlier EU word mark MultiSense — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, adjuvant, beverage, dental medicine, food additive, foodstuff, fruit, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2020201EN.01002201.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/22






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense By Kerry)
(Case T-108/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense By Kerry - Earlier EU word mark MultiSense - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2020/C 201/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Döhler GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1179/2018 2), relating to opposition proceedings between Döhler and Kerry Luxembourg

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Case T-250/20: Action brought on 29 April 2020 — Moviescreens Rental v EUIPO — the airscreen company (AIRSCREEN)
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building, machinery, registered trade mark, screen, trade-mark law








C_2020262EN.01002801.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/28






Action brought on 29 April 2020 — Moviescreens Rental v EUIPO — the airscreen company (AIRSCREEN)
(Case T-250/20)
(2020/C 262/38)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Moviescreens Rental GmbH (Damme, Germany) (represented by: D. Schulz and P. Stelzig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark AIRSCREEN — EU trade mark No 3 244 662

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2020 in Case R 2527/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


amend the contested decision, in so far as in it, the Board of Appeal upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division, which had rejected the application for invalidity of the contested trade mark in relation to the goods at issue in the present case in
Class 9 Inflatable motion picture screens; giant screens; silver screens
Class 17 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) frames fillable with air; flexible PVC surfaces
Class 19 Transportable structures, not of metal; giant screen frames, not of metal;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and Article 59(3), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-756/19: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Ramada Storax SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 90 and 273 — Taxable amount — Reduction — Non-payment — Insolvency of the debtor residing outside the country — Ruling by a court of another Member State declaring debts claimed irrecoverable — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, debt, financial solvency, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, principle of proportionality








C_2020287EN.01002401.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/24






Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 April 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Ramada Storax SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-756/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 90 and 273 - Taxable amount - Reduction - Non-payment - Insolvency of the debtor residing outside the country - Ruling by a court of another Member State declaring debts claimed irrecoverable - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality)
(2020/C 287/35)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ramada Storax SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Re:

Articles 90 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, pursuant to which the right to a reduction of the value added tax paid and relating to debts deemed irrecoverable following insolvency proceedings is refused to the taxable person where the debts concerned have been declared irrecoverable by a court of another Member State on the basis of the law in force in that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9813 – Blackstone/IQSA Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 150/01
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hotel industry, housing, investment company, merger control, property development, student residence








C_2020150EN.01000101.xml










6.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 150/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9813 – Blackstone/IQSA Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 150/01)
On 29 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 32020M9813. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-640/18: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of translation services of texts in the financial and banking fields from English into Hungarian — Ranking of a tenderer — Article 113(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 — Obligation to state reasons — Tender price of the highest ranked tenderers — Refusal of disclosure)
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrative transparency, award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2020215EN.01003401.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/34






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Intercontact Budapest v CdT
(Case T-640/18) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of translation services of texts in the financial and banking fields from English into Hungarian - Ranking of a tenderer - Article 113(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 - Obligation to state reasons - Tender price of the highest ranked tenderers - Refusal of disclosure)
(2020/C 215/41)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Intercontact Budapest Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: É. Subasicz, lawyer)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: M. Garnier, acting as Agent)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking, in essence, the annulment of the decision of the CdT of 29 August 2018 ranking the applicant’s bid in fifth position in the ranking of successful tenderers according to the cascade mechanism concerning Lot No 12 of contract notice FL/FIN 17.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) of 29 August 2018 classifying the tender of Intercontact Budapest Fordító és Pénzügyi Tanácsadó Kft. (Intercontact Budapest Kft.) in fifth place in the ranking of successful tenderers according to the cascade mechanism concerning Lot No 12 of contract notice FL/FIN 17.










2.


Dismisses the remaining heads of claim in the application.










3.


Orders the CdT to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Case T-109/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense — Earlier EU word mark MultiSense — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, adjuvant, beverage, dental medicine, food additive, foodstuff, fruit, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2020209EN.01002601.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/26






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO — Döhler (TasteSense)
(Case T-109/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark TasteSense - Earlier EU word mark MultiSense - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2020/C 209/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Döhler GmbH (Darmstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2018 (Case R 1178/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Döhler and Kerry Luxembourg.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kerry Luxembourg Sàrl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Case T-37/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Cimpress Schweiz v EUIPO — Impress Media (CIMPRESS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CIMPRESS — Earlier EU figurative mark impress — Earlier national word mark Impress-Media — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, business management, electronic commerce, office supplies, registered trade mark, retail trade, software, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2020201EN.01002002.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/20






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Cimpress Schweiz v EUIPO — Impress Media (CIMPRESS)
(Case T-37/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CIMPRESS - Earlier EU figurative mark impress - Earlier national word mark Impress-Media - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 201/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Cimpress Schweiz GmbH (Winterthur, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, P. Böhner and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Impress Media GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: F. Remmertz, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2018 (Joined Cases R 1716/2017-2 and R 1786/2017-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Impress Media and Cimpress Schweiz.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Authorises Impress GmbH to replace Impress Media GmbH as intervener;










2.


Dismisses the action;










3.


Orders Cimpress Schweiz GmbH to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Impress.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case T-707/18: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Tilly-Sabco v Council and Commission (Agriculture — Export refunds — Poultrymeat — Regulation (EU) 2018/1277 adopted following the annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 by a judgment of the Court of Justice — Competence of the author of the act — Abuse of process — Obligation to state reasons — Non-contractual liability — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Damage)
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: common organisation of markets, damages, export (EU), export refund, poultrymeat








C_2020209EN.01002301.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/23






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Tilly-Sabco v Council and Commission
(Case T-707/18) (1)

(Agriculture - Export refunds - Poultrymeat - Regulation (EU) 2018/1277 adopted following the annulment of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 by a judgment of the Court of Justice - Competence of the author of the act - Abuse of process - Obligation to state reasons - Non-contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Damage)
(2020/C 209/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Tilly-Sabco (Guerlesquin, France) (represented by: R. Milchior and S. Charbonnel, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: D. Komilaki and M. Alver, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Council Regulation (EU) 2018/1277 of 18 September 2018 on fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (OJ 2018 L 239, p. 1), and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of fixing those export refunds at zero for the period 19 July to 31 December 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tilly-Sabco to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Case C-186/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 29 April 2020 — HYDINA SK s.r.o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European tax cooperation, VAT, administrative cooperation, administrative sanction, exchange of information, fight against crime, tax inspection, tax offence, taxpayer








C_2020222EN.01002002.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) lodged on 29 April 2020 — HYDINA SK s.r.o. v Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky
(Case C-186/20)
(2020/C 222/23)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: HYDINA SK s.r.o.

Defendant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Questions referred







1.


Must recital 25 of Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 (1) of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax, which states that ‘the time limits laid down in this Regulation for the provision of information are to be understood as maximum periods not to be exceeded’, be interpreted as meaning that those time limits cannot be exceeded and that exceeding them results in the suspension of a tax audit being unlawful?










2.


Does failure to comply with the time limits for implementing the international exchange of information provided for in Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax result in consequences for (sanctions against) the requested authority and the requesting authority?










3.


Can international exchange of information that does not comply with the time limits laid down in Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax be regarded as unlawful interference in the rights of a taxable person?






(1)  OJ 2010 L 268, p. 1.
Case T-496/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — CV and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Weighting — Fixed entertainment allowance — Accommodation expenses — Obligation to state reasons — Duty of care — Equivalence in purchasing power — Equal treatment)
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, France, Ile-de-France, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, purchasing power parity, seat of institution








C_2020209EN.01002602.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/26






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — CV and Others v Commission
(Case T-496/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Weighting - Fixed entertainment allowance - Accommodation expenses - Obligation to state reasons - Duty of care - Equivalence in purchasing power - Equal treatment)
(2020/C 209/35)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: CV, CW and CY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and M. Brauhoff, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s implicit decision by which that institution’s appointing authority rejected the applicants’ request for, in essence, an increase, where applicable with retroactive effect, of the weighting applicable to their place of posting, in the present case Paris.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders CV, CW and CY to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.