do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-17/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — MC v Ufficio territoriale del governo (U.T.G.) — Prefettura di Foggia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Manifest inadmissibility — General principles of EU law — Right to good administration — Right of defence — Right to be heard — Measure adopted by the prefecture aimed at prohibiting an activity on account of alleged mafia infiltration — Legislation not providing for an adversarial administrative procedure)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Mafia, administrative procedure, admissibility, fight against crime, general legal principle, rights of the defence








C_2020287EN.01002601.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/26






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia — Italy) — MC v Ufficio territoriale del governo (U.T.G.) — Prefettura di Foggia
(Case C-17/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Manifest inadmissibility - General principles of EU law - Right to good administration - Right of defence - Right to be heard - Measure adopted by the prefecture aimed at prohibiting an activity on account of alleged mafia infiltration - Legislation not providing for an adversarial administrative procedure)
(2020/C 287/38)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MC

Defendant: Ufficio territoriale del governo (U.T.G.) — Prefettura di Foggia

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Puglia (Regional Administrative Court, Apulia, Italy), by decision of 27 November 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Case T-342/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark TASER — Earlier EU word marks TASER — Relative grounds for refusal — Detriment to reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, hand tool, registered trade mark, tinplate and cutlery industry, trade-mark law








C_2020230EN.01003401.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/34






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)
(Case T-342/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark TASER - Earlier EU word marks TASER - Relative grounds for refusal - Detriment to reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 230/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Martínez Albainox, SL (Albacete, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Taser International, Inc. (Scottsdale, Arizona, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2019 (Case R 1576/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Taser International and Martínez Albainox.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Martínez Albainox, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Case C-33/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Railway safety — Directive 2004/49/EC — Article 21(1) and (2) — Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure the organisational independence of the investigating body and its autonomous access to sufficient resources)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accident prevention, infringement procedure (EU), rail transport, supervisory body, transport safety








C_2020255EN.01000701.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/7






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-33/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Railway safety - Directive 2004/49/EC - Article 21(1) and (2) - Failure to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure the organisational independence of the investigating body and its autonomous access to sufficient resources)
(2020/C 255/07)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Vrignon, C. Georgieva-Kecsmar and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: L. Zaharieva and E. Petranova, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure the organisational independence of the investigating body from the manager of the railway infrastructure controlled by the Minister for Transport, Information Technology and Communications and the independence of that body from that manager as regards access to the resources necessary for the performance of its tasks, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community’s railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive);










2.


Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.
Case T-335/20: Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, financial aid, payment, rural development








C_2020247EN.01004401.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/44






Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Czech Republic v Commission
(Case T-335/20)
(2020/C 247/60)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Pavliš, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul Article 1 of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) CCI 2014CZ06RDNP 001 of 30 March 2020, which suspends interim payments linked to the Rural Development Programme of the Czech Republic for the period 2014-2020 and related to the expenditure incurred in the periods between 16 October 2018 and 31 December 2018 (notified under number C (2020) 1857 final);










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy. (1) The applicant alleges that the Commission incorrectly takes the view that the subsidy to which the suspended payment relates was provided in breach of national legislation. However, there could not have been any infringement of the national legislation concerned since that legislation does not apply to the type of subsidies which the suspended payment concerns.


(1)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549.
Case T-739/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Darment v Commission (Environment — Fluorinated greenhouse gases — Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 — Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market — Decision finding that an undertaking exceeded the quota allocated to it and imposing on it a penalty — Correction of the electronic registry for quotas — Transfer of quota — Authorisation to use a quota — Principle of good administration)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU emission allowance, greenhouse gas, hydrocarbon, market approval, reduction of gas emissions, sanction (EU)








C_2020230EN.01003001.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/30






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Darment v Commission
(Case T-739/18) (1)

(Environment - Fluorinated greenhouse gases - Regulation (EU) No 517/2014 - Placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market - Decision finding that an undertaking exceeded the quota allocated to it and imposing on it a penalty - Correction of the electronic registry for quotas - Transfer of quota - Authorisation to use a quota - Principle of good administration)
(2020/C 230/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Darment Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Ginter, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, A.C. Becker and M. Jauregui Gomez, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that the applicant exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the European Commission decision of 16 October 2018 finding that Darment Oy exceeded in 2017 its quota for the placing of hydrofluorocarbons on the market and imposing on it a penalty consisting in the reduction of its quota for the next quota allocation period by 31 370 tonnes of CO2 equivalent;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Case T-341/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark TASER — Earlier EU word marks TASER — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Detriment to reputation — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, registered trade mark, tinplate and cutlery industry, trade-mark law








C_2020230EN.01003301.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/33






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Martínez Albainox v EUIPO — Taser International (TASER)
(Case T-341/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark TASER - Earlier EU word marks TASER - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Detriment to reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 230/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Martínez Albainox, SL (Albacete, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Taser International, Inc. (Scottsdale, Arizona, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 March 2019 (Case R 1577/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Taser International and Martínez Albainox.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Martínez Albainox, SL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Case C-221/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — A Oy
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: beer, beverage industry, direct applicability, excise duty, small business, tax relief








C_2020262EN.01001701.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 28 May 2020 — A Oy
(Case C-221/20)
(2020/C 262/22)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: A Oy

Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 4 of Directive 92/83/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries pursuant to that provision must also apply the provision on the joint taxation of small breweries contained in the second sentence of Article 4(2) of that directive, or is the application of the latter provision left to the discretion of the Member State concerned?










2.


Does the second sentence of Article 4(2) of Directive 92/83/EEC have direct effect?






(1)  Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 May 2020 2020/C 178/02
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020178EN.01000201.xml










28.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 May 2020
(2020/C 178/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0991 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,58 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4583 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89595 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5608 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0675 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,8283 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,051 




HUF


Hungarian forint


348,70 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4372 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8433 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,4542 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6565 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5126 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5204 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7719 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5588 




KRW


South Korean won


1 359,04 




ZAR


South African rand


19,1477 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8682 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5893 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 167,76 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7783 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,668 




RUB


Russian rouble


78,1096 




THB


Thai baht


35,056 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,8679 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,5396 




INR


Indian rupee


83,2450 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9447 – Hitachi/ABB (Power Grid Division)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 280/02
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electrical engineering, energy grid, energy industry, information technology industry, merger control








C_2020280EN.01000201.xml










25.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9447 – Hitachi/ABB (Power Grid Division))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 280/02)
On 28 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 32020M9447. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-327/20: Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Group Nivelles v EUIPO — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Douchegoot)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, plumbing equipment








C_2020240EN.01003202.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/32






Action brought on 28 May 2020 — Group Nivelles v EUIPO — Easy Sanitary Solutions (Douchegoot)
(Case T-327/20)
(2020/C 240/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Group Nivelles (Gingelom, Belgium) (represented by: J.A.M. Jonkhout, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easy Sanitary Solutions BV (Oldenzaal, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design (Douchegoot) — European Union design No 107 834 0025

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 March 2020 in Case R 2664/2017-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare invalid, correcting the grounds as necessary, the European Union design of Easy Sanitary Solutions BV;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Article 64 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Case T-213/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — AW v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease — Article 16 — Statement of occupational disease — Article 22 — Medical Committee — Refusal to recognise the occupational nature of a disease — Irregularity of the opinion of the Medical Committee)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: health insurance, occupational accident insurance, occupational disease, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2020230EN.01003101.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/31






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — AW v Parliament
(Case T-213/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Social security - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Common rules on the insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Article 16 - Statement of occupational disease - Article 22 - Medical Committee - Refusal to recognise the occupational nature of a disease - Irregularity of the opinion of the Medical Committee)
(2020/C 230/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: AW (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: T. Lazian and I. Lázaro Betancor, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Parliament’s decisions of 7 August 2018 rejecting the requests to recognise the occupational nature of a disease, submitted by the applicant on 15 and 28 July 2016.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decisions of the European Parliament of 7 August 2018 rejecting the requests for recognition of the occupational nature of AW’s diseases of 15 and 28 July 2016;










2.


Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Case T-518/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — YG v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion procedure — Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 — Comparison of the merits — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: assistant, equal treatment, promotion








C_2020230EN.01002401.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/24






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — YG v Commission
(Case T-518/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2017 promotion procedure - Decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 9 - Comparison of the merits - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Duty to state reasons)
(2020/C 230/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: YG (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid, B. Eggers and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 November 2017 not to promote the applicant in the 2017 promotion procedure.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case C-220/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano (Italy) lodged on 28 May 2020 — XX v OO
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, decree, epidemic, equal treatment, equality before the law, fundamental rights, independence of the judiciary, infectious disease, right to justice, state of emergency








C_2020279EN.01002902.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano (Italy) lodged on 28 May 2020 — XX v OO
(Case C-220/20)
(2020/C 279/41)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Lanciano

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: XX

Defendant: OO

Intervener: WW

Question referred

Do Articles 2, 4(3), 6(1) and 9 of the Treaty on [European] Union and Articles 67(1) and (4), 81 and 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in conjunction with Articles 1, 6, 20, 21, 31, 34, 45 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude national provisions such as Articles 42, 83 and 87 of Decree Law No 18 of 17 March 2020, the decision of the Council of Ministers of 31 January 2020 declaring a state of national health emergency for six months until 31 July 2020 and Articles 14 and 263 of Decree Law No 34 of 19 May 2020 extending the national state of emergency for Covid-19 and the paralysis of civil and criminal justice and of the administrative work of Italian courts until 31 January 2021, taken together, in so far as they undermine the independence of the referring court and infringe the principle of due process as well as the connected rights to personal dignity, liberty and security, equality before the law, non-discrimination, fair and just working conditions, access to social security benefits and freedom of movement and of residence?