do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-337/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent)
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet, data transmission, database, marketing, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2020255EN.01002501.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/25






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hochmann Marketing v EUIPO (bittorrent)
(Case T-337/20)
(2020/C 255/32)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hochmann Marketing GmbH (Neu-Isenburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Jennings, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘bittorrent’ — EU word mark No 3 216 439

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2020 in Case R 187/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Serious error of law, since conversion into an Austrian trade mark is not clearly excluded;










—


Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and an arbitrary assumption that the applicant had at no stage made a substantiated claim that use in Austria is to be assumed;










—


Infringement of Article 103(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Serious procedural error and error of law in so far as the Board of Appeal disregarded EUIPO’s finding and understanding that conversion into a German mark was lawful;










—


Infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union through repeated disregard for the evidence of use submitted in Case C-118/18 P;










—


Procedural error and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since the applicant does have a financial interest in the outcome of the proceedings;










—


Serious procedural error and error of law for having taken into account the arguments in the intervener’s submission of 23 September 2019 alleging that the applicant’s national trade mark application had been made in bad faith;










—


Serious error of law for excluding conversion under Article 139(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the basis of the judgment in Case C-149/11;










—


Serious procedural error and error of law, since it was only after the Austrian mark was annulled that EUIPO requested that the applicant set out its position and EUIPO is still yet to express a view on the arguments put forward by the applicant in its conversion application;










—


Error of law as regards the decision on costs.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 26 May 2020 2020/C 177/02
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020177EN.01000201.xml










27.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 177/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

26 May 2020
(2020/C 177/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0975 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,92 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4558 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88878 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5563 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0600 




ISK


Iceland króna


154,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,8943 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,073 




HUF


Hungarian forint


349,60 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4506 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8440 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,4014 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6539 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5184 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5078 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7717 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5560 




KRW


South Korean won


1 352,23 




ZAR


South African rand


19,0650 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8269 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5840 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 193,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7889 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,358 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,7494 




THB


Thai baht


34,988 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9114 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,3102 




INR


Indian rupee


82,9270 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-322/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, merger control, restriction on competition, shareholder








C_2020247EN.01003902.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/39






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main v Commission
(Case T-322/20)
(2020/C 247/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stadtwerke Frankfurt am Main Holding GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 (Case M.8871);










—


join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court with actions concerning the same order M.8871, which, because of the substantive link, are cumulative and form a single decision terminating the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-320/20, Mainova v Commission.
Case T-318/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2020240EN.01003101.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/31






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — eins energie in sachsen v Commission
(Case T-318/20)
(2020/C 240/39)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: eins energie in sachsen GmbH & Co. KG (Chemnitz, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Case T-319/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GGEW v Commission
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2020240EN.01003102.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/31






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GGEW v Commission
(Case T-319/20)
(2020/C 240/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GGEW, Gruppen-Gas- und Elektrizitätswerk Bergstraße AG (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ to be compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ C 111, p. 1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/734 of 27 May 2020 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Rheinisches Apfelkraut’ (PGI))
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, designation of origin, labelling, product designation, syrup








L_2020172EN.01000101.xml










3.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 172/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/734
of 27 May 2020
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Rheinisches Apfelkraut’ (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 the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined Germany’s application for the approval of amendments to the specification for the protected geographical indication ‘Rheinisches Apfelkraut’, registered under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1378/2011 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3), as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Rheinisches Apfelkraut’ (PGI) are hereby approved.


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, 27 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)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1378/2011 of 20 December 2011 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Rheinisches Apfelkraut (PGI)) (OJ L 343, 23.12.2011, p. 18).

(3)  
            OJ C 431, 23.12.2019, p. 13.
Case T-317/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy distribution, energy industry, energy production, energy transport, merger control, renewable energy, retail selling








C_2020240EN.01003001.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/30






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — EnergieVerbund Dresden v Commission
(Case T-317/20)
(2020/C 240/38)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: EnergieVerbund Dresden GmbH (Dresden, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the defendant of 26 February 2019 declaring the concentration ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the internal market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Case T-314/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GWS Stadtwerke Hameln v Commission
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, acquisition of property, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, merger control, restriction on competition, shareholder, subsidiary








C_2020247EN.01003602.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/36






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — GWS Stadtwerke Hameln v Commission
(Case T-314/20)
(2020/C 247/49)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: GWS Stadtwerke Hameln GmbH (Hameln, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the defendant of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the common market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Case T-313/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, acquisition of property, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, merger control, restriction on competition, shareholder, subsidiary








C_2020247EN.01003601.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/36






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Stadtwerke Leipzig v Commission
(Case T-313/20)
(2020/C 247/48)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Stadtwerke Leipzig GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the common market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Case T-323/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hell Energy Magyarország v EUIPO (HELL)
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, coffee, instant product, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020240EN.01003201.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/32






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Hell Energy Magyarország v EUIPO (HELL)
(Case T-323/20)
(2020/C 240/41)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország Kft. (Budapest, Hungrary) (represented by Á. László and B. Mező, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark HELL — Application for registration No 18 002 048

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2020 in Case R 1712/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


Annul the contested decision and order EUIPO to continue the registration process in relation to the rejected goods.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-316/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Naturstrom v Commission
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, acquisition of property, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, merger control, restriction on competition, shareholder, subsidiary








C_2020247EN.01003702.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/37






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — Naturstrom v Commission
(Case T-316/20)
(2020/C 247/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Naturstrom AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the common market (Case M.8871) (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law, which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.
Case T-338/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 KI v eu-LISA
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, arrangement of working time, equal treatment, indemnification, reassignment, rights of the defence








C_2020279EN.01004201.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/42






Action brought on 27 May 2020 KI v eu-LISA
(Case T-338/20)
(2020/C 279/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KI (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 15 July 2019 to reassign the applicant to another position;










—


as far as necessary, annul the decision of 17 February 2020 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;










—


order the compensation of his moral prejudice estimated at 10 000 EUR; and,










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging an illegality of the decision of the Executive Director of 25 June 2019, confirmed and complemented by the decision of the Executive Director of 29 August 2019, insofar as it violates the requirements of a fair and transparent comparison of merits, the principle of non-discrimination, Article 41 of the Charter and the interest of the service.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the reassignment decision manifestly violates the interests of the service and the principle of assignment to an equivalent post.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the right to be heard, of the duty to state reasons and of Article 41 of the Charter.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty of care and of Article 31, paragraph 2 of the Charter, Article 1st sexies of the Staff Regulations and Directive 2003/88/CE concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, as well as breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
Case T-321/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — enercity v Commission
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, merger control, restriction on competition, shareholder








C_2020247EN.01003901.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/39






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — enercity v Commission
(Case T-321/20)
(2020/C 247/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: enercity AG (Hannover, Germany) (represented by: C. Schalast, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 (Case M.8871);










—


join the proceedings within the meaning of Article 68(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court with actions concerning the same order M.8871, which, because of the substantive link, are cumulative and form a single decision terminating the proceedings;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on two pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-320/20, Mainova v Commission.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9677 – DIC/BASF Colors & Effects) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 177/04
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: dyestuffs industry, economic concentration, merger control








C_2020177EN.01000501.xml










27.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 177/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9677 – DIC/BASF Colors & Effects)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 177/04)

1.   
On 15 May 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:






—


The DIC Corporation (‘DIC’, Japan),










—


BASF Colors & Effects (‘BCE’, Germany), controlled by BASF SE,




DIC acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of BCE.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for DIC: the production and sale of printing inks, organic pigments and synthetic resins. As regards pigments and other colourants, DIC is mainly active through its wholly-owned subsidiary Sun Chemical Corporation,










—


for BCE: the production and sale of pigments and other colourants.






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.



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.9677 – DIC/BASF Colors & Effects
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’).
Case T-315/20: Action brought on 27 May 2020 — TEAG v Commission
Date: 2020-05-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, acquisition of property, economic concentration, electrical energy, energy industry, energy production, merger control, restriction on competition, shareholder, subsidiary








C_2020247EN.01003701.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/37






Action brought on 27 May 2020 — TEAG v Commission
(Case T-315/20)
(2020/C 247/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: TEAG Thüringer Energie AG (Erfurt, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant's decision of 26 February 2019 declaring the merger ‘RWE/E.ON Assets’ compatible with the internal market, Case M.8871 (OJ 2020 C 111, p. 1);










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is based on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-312/20, EVH v Commission.