do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-254/20: Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — Krasnyj Octyabr (Representation of a lobster)
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01005702.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/57






Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ v EUIPO — Krasnyj Octyabr (Representation of a lobster)
(Case T-254/20)
(2020/C 215/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: I. Lukauskienė, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Krasnyj Octyabr (Moscow, Russia)

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 (Representation of a lobster) — European Union trade mark No 15 948 185

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2020 in Case R 1916/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Misapplication of the right to be heard in conjunction with Articles 94(1) and 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Misapplication of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


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










—


Misapplication of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Misapplication of Article 59(3) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran 2020/C 148/01
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2020148EN.01000101.xml










5.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/1






Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran
(2020/C 148/01)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr Mohammad Reza MOVASAGHNIA (no. 12), person appearing in Annex II, Part I, to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Annex IX, Part I, to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The following information is also brought to the attention of Mr Mohammad Ali JAFARI (no. 6), IRGC Brigadier-General Mostafa Mohammad NAJJAR (no. 7), IRGC Brigadier-General Mohammad Reza NAQDI (no. 8), IRGC Brigadier-General Hossein SALAMI (no. 11) and IRGC Brigadier-General Ahmad VAHIDI (no. 13), persons appearing in Annex II, Part II, to Decision 2010/413/CFSP and in Annex IX, Part II, to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran.
The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons and entities with new statements of reasons. The persons and entities concerned are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for their designation, by 11 May 2020, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Any observations received before 22 May 2020 will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review.


(1)  OJ L 195, 27.7.2010, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 88, 24.3.2012, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9793 – Permira/Sneakers Maker) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 148/04
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control








C_2020148EN.01000401.xml










5.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9793 – Permira/Sneakers Maker) –
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 148/04)

1.   
On 23 April 2020 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Permira Holdings Limited (‘Permira’, Channel Islands),










—


Sneakers Maker SpA (‘Sneakers Maker’, Italy).




Permira will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, sole control of Sneakers Maker.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Permira: is a private equity business engaged in the provision of investment management services to a number of investment funds. Permira controls a number of portfolio companies active in a variety of sectors, including in footwear and apparel such as Dr Martens and Reformation,










—


Sneakers Maker: is a holding company that owns the entire share capital of Golden Goose S.p.A., a manufacturer and supplier of luxury footwear and apparel.






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.9793 – Permira/Sneakers Maker
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.
Case C-192/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 5 May 2020 — Prima banka Slovensko, a.s. v HD
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, damages, deadline for payment, unfair terms of contract








C_2020329EN.01000301.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd Prešov (Slovakia) lodged on 5 May 2020 — Prima banka Slovensko, a.s. v HD
(Case C-192/20)
(2020/C 329/04)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Krajský súd Prešov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Prima banka Slovensko, a.s.

Defendant: HD

Questions referred







1.


Must Directive 93/13 (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) thereof, in conjunction with the interpretation contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Joined Cases C-96/16 and C-94/17 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:643), be interpreted as precluding legislation such as the protective framework provision contained in Paragraph 54(1) of the Občiansky zákonník (Civil Code), which does not allow the consumer’s position to be worsened by contractual terms in comparison to the statutory provision which provides for the following rights of the creditor in the event of a consumer defaulting on loan repayment:






—


the creditor’s right to default interest at a rate limited by a government regulation;










—


the creditor’s right to other penalties which the creditor may impose on the consumer and which, together with default interest, are limited to the amount of the loan principal outstanding;










—


the creditor’s right to compensation where the damage suffered by the creditor is higher than the default interest, that is, the creditor’s right to unlimited compensation according to the actual damage.














2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: does the high level of protection of consumer rights under Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 4(2) and 169(1) TFEU preclude a consumer from paying, for his or her delay in the performance of contractual obligations, the flat rate costs of the creditor rather than the equivalent of the actual loss suffered by the creditor, even if the actual loss is lower than the flat rate costs?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 2).
Case T-248/20: Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXYMLA)
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, dissemination of information, medical device, pharmaceutical product, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2020209EN.01003801.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/38






Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Pfizer (RUXYMLA)
(Case T-248/20)
(2020/C 209/49)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pfizer Inc. (New York, New York, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark RUXYMLA — Application for registration No 17 865 739

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 February 2020 in Case R 1878/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-269/20: 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.01003301.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/33






Action brought on 5 May 2020 — Pšonka v Council
(Case T-269/20)
(2020/C 222/36)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Viktor Pavlovyč Pšonka (Kiev, 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.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 May 2020 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 4 May 2020 2020/C 148/02
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2020148EN.01000201.xml










5.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/2






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 May 2020
Euro exchange rates (2)

4 May 2020
(2020/C 148/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0942 




JPY


Japanese yen


116,84 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4622 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87898 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8113 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0548 




ISK


Iceland króna


159,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,3280 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,119 




HUF


Hungarian forint


353,27 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5668 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8368 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,6932 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,7022 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5390 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4838 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8083 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5495 




KRW


South Korean won


1 340,00 




ZAR


South African rand


20,3924 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7275 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5820 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 522,42 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7226 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,379 




RUB


Russian rouble


82,3404 




THB


Thai baht


35,397 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0781 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,8862 




INR


Indian rupee


82,7870 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/629 of 5 May 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) (PGI)
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Greece, Southern Aegean, designation of origin, labelling, leguminous vegetable, product designation








L_2020148EN.01000101.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 148/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/629
of 5 May 2020
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) (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, Greece’s application to register the name ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) 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 ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Φασόλια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Fasolia Kattavias Rodou)/‘Λόπια Κατταβιάς Ρόδου’ (Lopia Kattavias Rodou) (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, 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, 5 May 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 428, 20.12.2019, p. 48.

(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-190/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 May 2020 — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein
Date: 2020-05-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, distance selling, medicinal product, pharmacy, sales promotion








C_2020279EN.01002601.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 5 May 2020 — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein
(Case C-190/20)
(2020/C 279/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: DocMorris NV

Respondent: Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

Question referred

Is it compatible with the provisions of Title VIII and, in particular, with Article 87(3) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) if a national provision (in this case the first sentence of Paragraph 7(1) of the Gesetz über die Werbung auf dem Gebiete des Heilwesens (Law on Advertising in the Field of Medicine’)) is interpreted as prohibiting a mail-order pharmacy established in another Member State from using a prize competition to attract customers if participation in the prize competition is linked to the submission of a prescription for a medicinal product for human use subject to a medical prescription, the prize offered is not a medicinal product but another object (in this case an electric bike worth EUR 2 500 and electric toothbrushes), and there is no risk that irrational and excessive use of that medicinal product is encouraged?


(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).