do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-211/20 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-732/16, Valencia Club de Fútbol v European Commission
Date: 2020-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, capital increase, company in difficulties, control of State aid, credit guarantee, equal treatment, professional sport, proof, sports body








C_2020262EN.01001601.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/16






Appeal brought on 22 May 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 12 March 2020 in Case T-732/16, Valencia Club de Fútbol v European Commission
(Case C-211/20 P)
(2020/C 262/20)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: European Commission

Other parties to the proceedings: Valencia Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. and Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2017/365 of 4 July 2016 on the State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (ex 2013/CP) implemented by Spain for Valencia Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva, Hércules Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva and Elche Club de Fútbol Sociedad Anónima Deportiva (OJ 2017 L 55, p. 12) in respect of Measure 1, consisting in the State guarantee provided by the IVF on 5 November 2009 to cover the bank loan to Fundación Valencia for the subscription of shares in Valencia CF, in the context of the operation to increase the capital of Valencia CF;










—


refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union; and










—


reserve the decision on costs.





Sole ground of appeal:

The Commission bases its appeal on a single ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law by incorrectly interpreting Article 107(1) of the Treaty, in particular with regard to demonstrating the existence of an advantage. More specifically, in paragraphs 124 to 138 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court (i) misinterpreted the Commission Notice on the application of Articles [107 TFEU] and [108 TFEU] to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ 2008 C 155, p. 10) in connection with the Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ 2008 C 14, p. 6) and misinterpreted the decision at issue; (ii) erred in law as regards the standard of the burden of proof concerning the existence of an advantage arising from an individual guarantee and as regards the Commission’s obligation of due diligence in a formal investigation procedure; and (iii) distorted the facts.
Case T-294/20: Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Talleres de Escoriaza v EUIPO — Salto Systems (KAAS KEYS AS A SERVICE)
Date: 2020-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic device, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020247EN.01002701.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/27






Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Talleres de Escoriaza v EUIPO — Salto Systems (KAAS KEYS AS A SERVICE)
(Case T-294/20)
(2020/C 247/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Talleres de Escoriaza, SA (Irún, Spain) (represented by: T. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Salto Systems, SL (Oiartzun, Spain)

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 word mark KAAS KEYS AS A SERVICE — European Union trade mark No 14 899 439

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 February 2020 in Case R 1363/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the duty to state reasons;










—


Infringement of the right to be heard;










—


Infringement 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;










—


Infringement 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;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-298/20: Action brought on 22 May 2020 — KD v EUIPO
Date: 2020-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, indemnification, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_2020262EN.01002901.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/29






Action brought on 22 May 2020 — KD v EUIPO
(Case T-298/20)
(2020/C 262/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KD (represented by: S. Pappas, and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the appraisal report regarding the period from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019, adopted by the European Union Intellectual Property Office and notified to the applicant on 11 March 2020;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of EUR 3 000 for the non-material harm suffered by the applicant, as a result of the appraisal report;










—


order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current 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 breach of the duty to state reasons, because the appraisal report contains comments less favourable than those of the previous reports, without any justification, constituting thus a manifest error of fact, with the further consequence for the applicant of being deprived of the exercise of her rights of defence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of care, by failing to consider the successful implementation of the various projects by the applicant, as well as her motivation and willingness to work, despite her family and health problems.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, regarding the inconsistency between the comments and the rating and the failure to take into account all the applicable criteria.
With regard to the claim for non-material damage, the applicant justifies this on the grounds of the creation of feelings of distress, anxiety and injustice as a result of the unlawfulness of the contested report.
Case C-209/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 22 May 2020 — Renesola UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Date: 2020-05-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, customs procedure suspending duties, customs regulations, originating product, photovoltaic cell, solar collector








C_2020262EN.01001501.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/15






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 22 May 2020 — Renesola UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
(Case C-209/20)
(2020/C 262/19)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Renesola UK Ltd

Respondent: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Questions referred







1.


Is Commission Implementing Regulation 1357/2013/EU (1), to the extent that it purports to determine the country of origin of solar modules manufactured from materials coming from several jurisdictions by ascribing origin to the country where the solar cells were manufactured, contrary to the requirement in Article 24 of Council Regulation 2913/92/EEC (2) (the Community Customs Code), namely that goods whose production involves more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last substantial economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture, and hence invalid?










2.


If Regulation 1357/2013 is invalid, is Article 24 of the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the assembly of solar modules from solar cells and other parts constitutes a substantial processing or working?






(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1357/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2013, L 341, p. 47).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992, L 302, p. 1).
Case T-297/20: Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)
Date: 2020-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, cosmetic product, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, optical industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020255EN.01002201.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/22






Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Fashioneast and AM.VI. v EUIPO — Moschillo (RICH JOHN RICHMOND)
(Case T-297/20)
(2020/C 255/28)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Fashioneast Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), AM.VI. Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: A. Camusso and M. Baghetti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Moschillo Srl (Avellino, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietors of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark RICH JOHN RICHMOND — European Union trade mark No 3 815 149

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 March 2020 in Case R 1381/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the Applicant be discharged from the payment of all the fees and costs of the appeal and cancellation proceedings;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-300/20: Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Nosio v EUIPO — Tros del Beto (ACCUSÌ)
Date: 2020-05-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020247EN.01002901.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/29






Action brought on 22 May 2020 — Nosio v EUIPO — Tros del Beto (ACCUSÌ)
(Case T-300/20)
(2020/C 247/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer, G. Rubino, A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tros del Beto, SLU (Marçà, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark ACCUSÌ — Application for registration No 16 014 921

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 in Case R 871/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the signs dissimilar;










—


admit the opposed application to registration.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.