do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-268/20: Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Pšonka v Council
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, proof, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020222EN.01003201.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/32






Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Pšonka v Council
(Case T-268/20)
(2020/C 222/35)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Artem Viktorovyč Pšonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by: M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/373 of 5 March 2020 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/370 of 5 March 2020 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, (2) in so far as that decision and that regulation apply to the applicant;










—


declare that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs and order it to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration






—


The applicant claims in support of his action, inter alia, that the Council of the European Union did not, in adopting the contested decision, act with due care, since before adopting the contested decision it did not address the applicant’s arguments and the evidence the applicant submitted, which supports his case, and it relied primarily on the brief summary by the Prosecutor-General’s Office of Ukraine and did not request any supplementary information on the course of the investigation in the Ukraine.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to property






—


The applicant claims in this connection that the restrictive measures which have been taken against him are disproportionate, go beyond what is necessary and amount to an infringement of guarantees under international law of protection of the applicant’s right to property.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms






—


The applicant claims in this connection that in the adoption of the restrictive measures his rights to a fair trial and to the presumption of innocence were infringed, as were his rights of the defence and his right to the protection of private property.










(1)  OJ 2020 L 71, p. 10.

(2)  OJ 2020 L 71, p. 1.
Case T-253/20: Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Oatly v EUIPO (IT'S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS)
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, cereals, foodstuff, non-alcoholic beverage, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, substitute product, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01005701.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/57






Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Oatly v EUIPO (IT'S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS)
(Case T-253/20)
(2020/C 215/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Oatly AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS — Application for registration No 18 035 560

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 in Case R 2446/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant at the present proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-189/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 May 2020 — Laudamotion GmbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, contract of carriage, jurisdiction, unfair terms of contract








C_2020279EN.01002501.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 5 May 2020 — Laudamotion GmbH v Verein für Konsumenteninformation
(Case C-189/20)
(2020/C 279/35)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Laudamotion GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

Questions referred







1.


Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, (1) in particular Article 25, Article 17(3) and Article 19, and in any event in the light of Article 67, to be interpreted as precluding a review of unfairness of international agreements conferring jurisdiction in accordance with Directive 93/13/EEC (2) or the corresponding national implementing provisions?










2.


Is the last clause of the first sentence of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (‘unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State’) to be interpreted as meaning that it opens up the possibility — which extends even beyond the area of harmonised law — of a substantive review in accordance with the national law of the Member State on which jurisdiction has been conferred via prorogation?










3.


In the event that Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative:
Are the national implementing provisions applicable to a review of unfairness in accordance with Directive 93/13/EEC determined by the law of the Member State on which jurisdiction has been conferred via prorogation or by the lex causae of the Member State seised?






(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

(2)  Council Directive of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Special Report 11/2020 ‘Energy efficiency in buildings: greater focus on cost-effectiveness still needed’ 2020/C 148/03
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU energy policy, building, building insulation, economic and social cohesion, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, energy use, operational programme








C_2020148EN.01000301.xml










5.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/3






Special Report 11/2020
‘Energy efficiency in buildings: greater focus on cost-effectiveness still needed’
(2020/C 148/03)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 11/2020 ‘Energy efficiency in buildings: greater focus on cost-effectiveness still needed’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu