do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-263/20: Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, anti-pollution device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2020215EN.01006002.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/60






Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services)
(Case T-263/20)
(2020/C 215/70)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genova, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark R.T.S. ROCHEM Technical Services — European Union trade mark No 12 313 797

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 1545/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the EU trade mark No 12 313 797, also for classes 11 and 40;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal appear before the Court, to pay its own costs and bear the fees and costs of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 64(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-141/19: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2020 — Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Environment — Energy — Directive (EU) 2018/2001 — Inclusion of forest biomass among the sources of renewable energy — Act not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: air quality, biomass, energy consumption, energy saving, environmental law, environmental protection, polluter pays principle, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy, renewable resources








C_2020222EN.01002301.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/23






Order of the General Court of 6 May 2020 — Sabo and Others v Parliament and Council
(Case T-141/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Environment - Energy - Directive (EU) 2018/2001 - Inclusion of forest biomass among the sources of renewable energy - Act not of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 222/25)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Peter Sabo (Tulčik, Slovakia) and the 9 other applicants whose names appear in the Annex to the order (represented by: R. Smith, A. Dews and C. Day, Solicitors, D. Wolfe QC and P. Lockley and B. Mitchell, Barristers)

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: I. McDowell, C. Ionescu Dima and A. Tamás, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Lo Monaco and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment in part of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ 2018 L 328, p. 82), in so far as it includes forest biomass among the sources of renewable energy.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene made by the Commission, U.S. Industrial Pellet Association, Stichting Dutch Biomass Certification and Stichting RBCN (Rotterdam Biomass Commodities Network).










3.


Mr Peter Sabo and the other applicants whose names appear in the Annex shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.










4.


The Commission, U.S. Industrial Pellet Association, Stichting Dutch Biomass Certification and Stichting RBCN (Rotterdam Biomass Commodities Network) shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9784 – Triton/Renk) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 203/03
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, mechanical engineering, mechanical equipment, merger control








C_2020203EN.01000301.xml










17.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9784 – Triton/Renk)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 203/03)
On 6 May 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 32020M9784. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-628/19 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 May 2020 — Csanád Szegedi v European Parliament (Appeal — European Parliament — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid)
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, servant (EU)








C_2020287EN.01002102.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/21






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 May 2020 — Csanád Szegedi v European Parliament
(Case C-628/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Parliament - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid)
(2020/C 287/31)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Appellant: Csanád Szegedi (represented by: K. Bodó, ügyvéd)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and Z. Nagy, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2.


Mr Csanád Szegedi is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Case C-196/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 6 May 2020 — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, contract, indemnification, ticket, travel agency, traveller








C_2020271EN.01002401.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 6 May 2020 — Eurowings GmbH v Flightright GmbH
(Case C-196/20)
(2020/C 271/32)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Eurowings GmbH

Respondent: Flightright GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does a passenger have a ‘confirmed reservation’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) if he has received, from a tour operator with which he has a contract, ‘other proof’ within the meaning of Article 2(g) of this regulation, by which he is assured transport on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, without the tour operator having made a seat reservation for that flight with the air carrier concerned and having received confirmation from the latter?










2.


Is an air carrier to be regarded as an operating air carrier within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Regulation No 261/2004 in relation to a passenger if, despite the fact that that passenger has a contract with a tour operator which has promised him carriage on a particular flight, individualised by points of departure and destination, times of departure and arrival and flight number, the tour operator has not, however, reserved a seat for the passenger and has therefore not established a contractual relationship with the air carrier in respect of that flight?










3.


Can the ‘scheduled time of arrival’ of a flight within the meaning of Article 2(h), Article 5(1)(c), the second sentence of Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 261/2004 be determined, for the purposes of compensation for cancellation or long delay in arrival, from ‘other proof’ issued to a passenger by a tour operator, or must the ticket pursuant to Article 2(f) of this regulation be taken into account for that purpose?






(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-193/20 P: Appeal brought on 6 May 2020 by Dekoback GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2020 in Case T-80/19, Dekoback GmbH v EUIPO
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, bakery, consultancy, decorative item, foodstuff, merchandising, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020287EN.01002704.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/27






Appeal brought on 6 May 2020 by Dekoback GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) delivered on 5 March 2020 in Case T-80/19, Dekoback GmbH v EUIPO
(Case C-193/20 P)
(2020/C 287/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Dekoback GmbH (represented by: V. von Moers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 9 July 2020, the Court of Justice (Vice-President) decided that the appeal should be dismissed as inadmissible and ordered Dekoback GmbH to bear its own costs.
Case T-256/20: Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Steinel v EUIPO (GluePro)
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, adhesive, chemical product, hand tool, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020215EN.01005801.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/58






Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Steinel v EUIPO (GluePro)
(Case T-256/20)
(2020/C 215/67)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Steinel GmbH (Herzebrock-Clarholz, Germany) (represented by: M. Breuer and K. Freudenstei, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark GluePro — Application No 18 029 161

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 2516/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-262/20: Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, anti-pollution device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, water treatment








C_2020222EN.01003001.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/30






Action brought on 6 May 2020 — Rochem Group v EUIPO — Rochem Marine (ROCHEM)
(Case T-262/20)
(2020/C 222/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rochem Group AG (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: K. Guridi Sedlak, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rochem Marine Srl (Genova, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ROCHEM — International registration designating the European Union No 1 151 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2020 in Case R 1546/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to render a new decision refusing the declaration of invalidity filed against the International trademark registration No 1 151 545, also for classes 11 and 40;










—


order EUIPO and the intervener, should the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal appear before the Court, to pay its own costs and bear the fees and costs of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 64(2) and (3) in connection with Article 198 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 5 May 2020 2020/C 150/03
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020150EN.01000301.xml










6.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 150/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

5 May 2020
(2020/C 150/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0843 




JPY


Japanese yen


115,71 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4612 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87060 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6980 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0525 




ISK


Iceland króna


159,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


11,1730 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,978 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,27 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5316 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8260 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,6866 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6825 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5201 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,4057 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7910 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5359 




KRW


South Korean won


1 324,81 




ZAR


South African rand


19,9018 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6575 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5735 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 372,93 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6674 




PHP


Philippine peso


54,863 




RUB


Russian rouble


80,4713 




THB


Thai baht


35,126 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9576 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,8850 




INR


Indian rupee


82,1435 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9816 – Advent/TA/Conservice) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 224/01
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, public service, software








C_2020224EN.01000101.xml










8.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 224/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9816 – Advent/TA/Conservice)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 224/01)
On 6 May 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 32020M9816. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Joined Cases C-415/19 to C–417/19: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Blumar SpA (C-415/19), Roberto Abate SpA (C-416/19), Commerciale Gicap SpA (C-417/19) v Agenzia delle Entrate (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — State aid — European Commission decision declaring an aid scheme compatible with the internal market — National legislation precluding the award of aid under the authorised scheme in the event of non-compliance with a condition not provided for in the Commission decision)
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, State aid, control of State aid, investment loan, less-favoured region, principle of proportionality, tax








C_2020287EN.01001901.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/19






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 May 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Blumar SpA (C-415/19), Roberto Abate SpA (C-416/19), Commerciale Gicap SpA (C-417/19) v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Joined Cases C-415/19 to C–417/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - State aid - European Commission decision declaring an aid scheme compatible with the internal market - National legislation precluding the award of aid under the authorised scheme in the event of non-compliance with a condition not provided for in the Commission decision)
(2020/C 287/27)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Blumar SpA (C-415/19), Roberto Abate SpA (C-416/19), Commerciale Gicap SpA (C-417/19)

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate

Operative part of the order

Article 108(3) TFEU, Commission Decision C(2008) 380 of 25 January 2008, ‘State aid N 39/2007 — Italy — Tax credit for new investment in less-favoured areas’, and the principle of proportionality must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the award of aid, under an aid scheme established by that Member State and authorised by that decision, is subject to a declaration by the applicant that it has not received aid declared unlawful and incompatible by the European Commission, which it has failed to repay or deposit into a blocked account, even though it is not the subject of a request for repayment and despite the fact that that decision does not explicitly provide for such a requirement.


(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/630 of 6 May 2020 conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ (PDO)
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Community of Valencia, Spain, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, red wine, rosé wine, white wine








L_2020148EN.01000301.xml










11.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 148/3








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/630
of 6 May 2020
         
conferring protection under Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ (PDO)


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (1), and in particular Article 99 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 97(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the Commission examined Spain’s application to register the name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ and published it in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


No statement of objection has been received by the Commission under Article 98 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013.












(3)


In accordance with Article 99 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013, the name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ should be protected and entered in the register referred to in Article 104 of that Regulation.












(4)


The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee for the Common Organisation of Agricultural Markets,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Chozas Carrascal’ (PDO) is hereby protected.


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, 6 May 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 671.

(2)  
            OJ C 35, 3.2.2020, p. 11.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9833 – KKR/Viridor) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 170/02
Date: 2020-05-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, renewable energy, waste management








C_2020170EN.01002001.xml










18.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 170/20






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9833 – KKR/Viridor)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 170/02)
On 6 May 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 32020M9833. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.