do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9783 – EQT/OMERS/DGF/INEXIO) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 227/04
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pension scheme, provision of services, telecommunications








C_2020227EN.01000401.xml










10.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 227/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9783 – EQT/OMERS/DGF/INEXIO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 227/04)
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 32020M9783. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-73/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Bergslagernas Järnvaru v EUIPO — Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen (Wood-splitting tool) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a wood-splitting tool — Earlier national design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — No different overall impression — Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, hand tool, wood industry








C_2020209EN.01002402.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/24






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Bergslagernas Järnvaru v EUIPO — Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen (Wood-splitting tool)
(Case T-73/19) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a wood-splitting tool - Earlier national design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - No different overall impression - Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002)
(2020/C 209/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag (Saltsjö-Boo, Sweden) (represented by: S. Kirschstein-Freund and B. Breitinger, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen GmbH (Ichenhausen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 (Case R 1455/2018-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Scheppach Fabrikation von Holzbearbeitungsmaschinen and Bergslagernas Järnvaru.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bergslagernas Järnvaruaktiebolag to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Case T-78/19: Order of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Plásticos Hidrosolubles (green cycles) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — European Union figurative mark green cycles — Genuine use of the mark — Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 10(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character — Lack of use of the sign as a company logo)
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, plastics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020201EN.01002101.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 201/21






Order of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Lidl Stiftung v EUIPO — Plásticos Hidrosolubles (green cycles)
(Case T-78/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - European Union figurative mark green cycles - Genuine use of the mark - Article 18(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 10(3) and (4) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character - Lack of use of the sign as a company logo)
(2020/C 201/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx, K. Bonhagen and M. Wolter, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Scardocchia and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Plásticos Hidrosolubles, SL (Rafelbuñol, Spain) (represented by: C. Sueiras Villalobos, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 November 2018 (Case R 778/2018-5) relating to revocation proceedings between Lidl Stiftung and Plásticos Hidrosolubles.

Operative part of the order







1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 29 November 2018 (Case R 778/2018-5) in so far as it found genuine use of the contested mark in respect of the goods in Class 20.










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder.










3.


Orders Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG, EUIPO and Plásticos Hidrosolubles, SL, to each bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the Court.






(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Case T-497/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — CZ and Others v EEAS (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, seat of institution








C_2020209EN.01002701.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/27






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — CZ and Others v EEAS
(Case T-497/19) (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 209/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: CZ, DB, DC, DD (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the EEAS’ implicit decision by which the EEAS’ appointing authority and the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment 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 CZ, DB, DC and DD to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.
Case T-106/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Abarca v EUIPO — Abanca Corporación Bancaria (ABARCA SEGUROS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ABARCA SEGUROS — Earlier EU word mark ABANCA — 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, consultancy, financial services, insurance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020209EN.01002501.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/25






Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2020 — Abarca v EUIPO — Abanca Corporación Bancaria (ABARCA SEGUROS)
(Case T-106/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ABARCA SEGUROS - Earlier EU word mark ABANCA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 209/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J. Pimenta and Á. Pinho, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA (Betanzos, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 (Case R 1370/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Abanca Corporación Bancaria and Abarca — Companhia de Seguros.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Abarca — Companhia de Seguros SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Abanca Corporación Bancaria, SA.






(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Case T-234/20: Action brought on 29 April 2020 — HB v EIB
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, abuse of power, confidentiality, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_2020215EN.01004302.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/43






Action brought on 29 April 2020 — HB v EIB
(Case T-234/20)
(2020/C 215/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: HB (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul (i) the 2017 performance appraisal and (ii) the decision of the adjudication panel, rejecting the applicant’s appeal against her 2017 performance appraisal;










—


order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000, in compensation for the loss of a chance, together with interest at the legal rate from the date of delivery of the judgment until payment in full has been made;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the claim for annulment of the performance appraisal, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and of the right to confidentiality, insofar as, by commenting on the applicant’s alleged improper behaviour with a senior manager in June 2017 in the performance appraisal, X breached the principle of good administration as well as the applicant’s right to confidentiality.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers, insofar as the applicant claims that she was harassed by X during the reporting period, that (i) as a result, X did not have the objectivity to assess her performance and thus vitiated his comments and marks with manifest error, and (ii) the appraisal report was adopted with the intention of harming the applicant and is thus vitiated by misuse of powers




In support of her claim for the annulment of the appeal panel’s decision, the applicant relies on two further pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging procedural irregularities, insofar as procedural irregularities were committed by the adjudication panel (irregular notice to the hearing, irregular adoption of the decision in contumaciam), in the absence of which the outcome of the procedure might have been different.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the right to be heard, insofar as, as a result of the procedural irregularities committed, the applicant was not present at the hearing of the adjudication panel and was thus not heard.




In support of her damages claim, the applicant argues that, by rejecting her request for conciliation, illegally, the defendant deprived the applicant of a chance of settling the matter amicably and avoiding proceedings before the General Court.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 28 April 2020 2020/C 140/03
Date: 2020-04-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020140EN.01000401.xml










29.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 140/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

28 April 2020
(2020/C 140/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0877 




JPY


Japanese yen


116,06 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4570 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87078 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7480 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0586 




ISK


Iceland króna


159,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,2783 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,227 




HUF


Hungarian forint


355,94 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5468 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8445 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,6115 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6734 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5179 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4301 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7956 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5407 




KRW


South Korean won


1 325,80 




ZAR


South African rand


20,2913 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6977 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5600 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 714,69 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7451 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,032 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,6862 




THB


Thai baht


35,280 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1004 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,5269 




INR


Indian rupee


82,5220 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.