do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9845 – Davidson Kempner Capital Management/GoldenTree Asset Management/Quorum Health Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 185/01
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, health service, investment company, merger control








C_2020185EN.01000101.xml










4.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9845 – Davidson Kempner Capital Management/GoldenTree Asset Management/Quorum Health Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 185/01)
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 32020M9845. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-684/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90 — Articles 184 to 186 — Principle of neutrality of VAT — Adjustment of the initial tax deduction — Discounts granted for intra-Community and internal supplies of good)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, cessation of trading, discount sale, invoicing, principle of proportionality, supply, tax rebate, tax relief








C_2020255EN.01000501.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/5






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti — Romania) — World Comm Trading Gfz SRL v Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti
(Case C-684/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90 - Articles 184 to 186 - Principle of neutrality of VAT - Adjustment of the initial tax deduction - Discounts granted for intra-Community and internal supplies of good)
(2020/C 255/05)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: World Comm Trading Gfz SRL

Defendants: Agenţia Naţională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Ploieşti

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 185 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the national tax authorities must require a taxable person to adjust the deduction of the value added tax initially made where, following the obtaining by that person of discounts on internal supplies of goods, those authorities consider that the deduction initially made was greater than that which that taxable person was entitled to make.










2.


Article 185 of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that a adjustment of a deduction of value added tax (VAT) initially made is required in respect of a taxable person established in a Member State, even where that taxable person’s supplier has ceased his activities in that Member State and that supplier can therefore no longer claim repayment of part of the VAT he has paid.






(1)  OJ C 44, 4.2.2019.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht dated 28 May 2020 in the case of Pintail AG v Finanzmarktaufsicht (Case E-6/20) 2020/C 316/08
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, business activity, electronic money, financial institution, trade licence








C_2020316EN.01000901.xml










24.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 316/9






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht dated 28 May 2020 in the case of Pintail AG v Finanzmarktaufsicht
(Case E-6/20)
(2020/C 316/08)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 28 May 2020 from Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht (Financial Market Authority), which was received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Pintail AG v Finanzmarktaufsicht on the following questions:






1.


Must the terms ‘activity’ and ‘business activity’, as they are used in Directives 2009/110/EC and 2007/64/EC (respectively (EU) 2015/2366), be understood as synonyms; if not, what is the difference?










2.


Must ‘activity’ or ‘business activity’ of an authorised electronic money institution within the meaning of Directive 2009/110/EC be understood as meaning the issuance of electronic money, offering to issue electronic money or at least the activities of an electronic money institution that are subject to authorisation (strict interpretation) or does a sufficiently tangible business action also already suffice, for example, the conduct of other business activities, as is provided for in Article 6(1)(e) of Directive 2009/110/EC, to the extent that this action is directed, in accordance with objective criteria and genuinely, towards the issuance of electronic money and not completely trivial (broad interpretation)? Should a broad interpretation be required: What is the difference between a business action of that kind and purely preparatory actions?










3.


Using which criteria must the term of ceasing to engage in business, as is provided for in Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2007/64/EC (respectively, Article 13(1)(a) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366), be interpreted?










4.


Does it make a difference in the interpretation whether the Member State has implemented Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2007/64/EC (respectively, Article 13(1)(a) of Directive (EU) 2015/2366) in such a way that following 6 months of inactivity the authorisation is withdrawn by active conduct on the part of the authorities or in a such a way that the lapse arises by operation of law (ex lege) and the authority merely determines this afterwards?
Case C-309/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos v European Commission (Appeal — Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Order of the General Court finding an action manifestly inadmissible for lack of a handwritten signature — Paper version of the application including a printed authenticated electronic signature)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Castile-Leon, Spain, admissibility, designation of origin, electronic signature, labelling, meat product, product designation








C_2020255EN.01000702.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/7






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 — Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos v European Commission
(Case C-309/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 73(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Order of the General Court finding an action manifestly inadmissible for lack of a handwritten signature - Paper version of the application including a printed authenticated electronic signature)
(2020/C 255/08)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos (represented by: J. Azcárate Olano and E. Almarza Nantes, abogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and I. Naglis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Asociación de fabricantes de morcilla de Burgos to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Case T-506/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Workplace Group v EUIPO — Technopolis Holding (UMA WORKSPACE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark UMA WORKSPACE — Earlier EU figurative mark and earlier UK figurative and word marks WORKSPACE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, business lease, catering industry, financial services, insurance, provision of services, registered trade mark, rental business, trade event, trade-mark law








C_2020230EN.01003402.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/34






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Workplace Group v EUIPO — Technopolis Holding (UMA WORKSPACE)
(Case T-506/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark UMA WORKSPACE - Earlier EU figurative mark and earlier UK figurative and word marks WORKSPACE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 230/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Workplace Group plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Hine, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Technopolis Holding Oyj (Oulu, Finland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 May 2019 (Case R 1910/2018-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Workspace Group and Technopolis Holding.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Workspace Group plc to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case T-681/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark STAYER — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Categorisation of the goods in connection with which genuine use has been proved)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, machine tool, machine-tool industry, registered trade mark, tool industry, trade-mark law








C_2020230EN.01002602.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/26






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ v EUIPO — Stayer Ibérica (STAYER)
(Case T-681/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark STAYER - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Categorisation of the goods in connection with which genuine use has been proved)
(2020/C 230/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZAO Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: N. Bürglen, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Stayer Ibérica, SA (Pinto, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 September 2018 (Case R 1940/2017-5), relating to revocation proceedings between Korporaciya ‘Masternet’ and Stayer Ibérica.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case C-153/19: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — FZ v DER Touristik GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 12 — Package tour — Long delay of a flight — Passengers’ compensation — Additional compensation — Passenger’s right to a reduction in the price of the journey)
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, indemnification, package travel, passenger rights, reduced price, traveller








C_2020287EN.01001601.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/16






Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 May 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — FZ v DER Touristik GmbH
(Case C-153/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 12 - Package tour - Long delay of a flight - Passengers’ compensation - Additional compensation - Passenger’s right to a reduction in the price of the journey)
(2020/C 287/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FZ

Defendant: DER Touristik GmbH

Operative part of the order

Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 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, must be interpreted as not precluding a passenger who has already been compensated under Article 7 of that regulation, from being compensated under a right to a reduction in the price of the journey available to him or her against a tour operator, provided for by the law of the Member State concerned, in so far as that compensation is granted for a loss that is specific to that individual passenger arising from one of the situations provided for in Article 1(1) of that regulation, which it is for the national court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Case T-615/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line — Earlier EU figurative mark representing the capital letter D and earlier international figurative mark (D) representing an angled line — Relative ground for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020230EN.01002501.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/25






Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020 — Diesel v EUIPO — Sprinter megacentros del deporte (Representation of a curved and angled line)
(Case T-615/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a curved and angled line - Earlier EU figurative mark representing the capital letter D and earlier international figurative mark (D) representing an angled line - Relative ground for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2020/C 230/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Diesel SpA (Breganze, Italy) (represented by: A. Parassina and A. Giovannardi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL (Elche, Spain) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, and T. Austen, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of EUIPO of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Diesel and Sprinter megacentros del deporte.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2018 (Case R 2657/2017-5) in so far as it concerns the earlier mark No 583708 with regard to ‘men and women’s denim jeans’ and ‘footwear’ in Class 25;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders Diesel SpA, EUIPO and Sprinter megacentros del deporte, SL each to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU Extension of period for the adoption of implementing acts 2020/C 178/05
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Denmark, award of contract, epidemic, infectious disease, market access, postal service, provision of services








C_2020178EN.01000701.xml










28.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 178/7






Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Extension of period for the adoption of implementing acts
(2020/C 178/05)
On 19 December 2019 the Commission received a request pursuant to Article 35 of Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1).
This request, made by the Kingdom of Denmark concerns business to consumer parcel services in Denmark. The relevant notice was published on page number 55 of OJ C 64 of 27 February 2020. The initial deadline was 11 May 2020.
Pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 1 to Annex IV of Directive 2014/25/EU, the deadline may be extended by the Commission with the agreement of those having made the request for exemption concerned. In the light of the current context and the effects of the COVID 19 pandemics, and with the agreement of the Kingdom of Denmark, the period available to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby extended by 12 working days.
The final deadline therefore expires on 29 May 2020.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).
Amended proposal for an Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: administrative expenditure (EU), budgetary procedure, budgetary reserve (EU), financial management, interinstitutional agreement, interinstitutional cooperation (EU)

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.5.2020  COM(2020) 444 final  Amended proposal for an  Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management  
 
 
Amended proposal for an 

Interinstitutional Agreement 

between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary 
discipline, on cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management 

Commission proposal COM(2018)323 is amended as follows: 

(1) 

In Part I.B, Point 11 is replaced by the following: 

“Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve 

11.When the Commission considers that the Solidarity and Emergency Aid Reserve 
needs to be called on, it shall present to the European Parliament and the Council a 
proposal  for  a  transfer  from  the  Reserve  to  the  corresponding  budgetary  lines  in 
accordance with the Financial Regulation.” 

(2) 

In Part II.A, the following point 15a is inserted: 

“15a. The Commission shall prepare an annual report on the implementation of the 
European Union Recovery Instrument1 (ʻEuropean Recovery Instrumentʼ), bringing 
together available and non-confidential information relating to: 

- 

- 

- 

assets and liabilities arising from borrowing and lending operations carried out 
under Article 3b of the Own Resources Decision2, 

in 
aggregate  volume  of  proceeds  assigned 
implementation  of  the  European  Recovery  Instrument  in  the  previous  year, 
broken down by programme and budget line, 

to  Union  programmes 

the contribution of the borrowed funds to the achievements of the objectives of 
the European Recovery Instrument and the specific Union programmes.” 

1 OJ, … 
2 OJ, …. 

1
Council Decision (EU) 2020/731 of 28 May 2020 appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2020-05-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Spain, appointment of members, member of the Committee of the Regions








LI2020172EN.01000301.xml










3.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


LI 172/3








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2020/731
of 28 May 2020
         
appointing a member and an alternate member, proposed by the Kingdom of Spain, of the Committee of the Regions


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 305 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal of the Spanish Government,

Whereas:







(1)


On 10 December 2019, 20 January 2020, 3 February 2020 and 26 March 2020, the Council adopted Decisions (EU) 2019/2157 (1), (EU) 2020/102 (2), (EU) 2020/144 (3) and (EU) 2020/511 (4) appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025.












(2)


A member’s seat on the Committee of the Regions has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Mr Alfred BOSCH i PASCUAL.












(3)


An alternate member’s seat has become vacant following the end of the term of office of Ms Mireia BORRELL PORTA,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following are hereby appointed to the Committee of the Regions for the remainder of the current term of office, which runs until 25 January 2025:






(a)


as a member:






—


Mr Bernat SOLÉ BARRIL, Member of a Regional Executive: Gobierno de la Generalitat de Cataluña;














(b)


as an alternate member:






—


Ms Elisabet NEBREDA VILA, Representative of a regional body with political accountability to an elected Assembly: Parlamento de Cataluña.











Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 28 May 2020.


For the Council


The President

G. GRLIĆ RADMAN
            





(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2019/2157 of 10 December 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 327, 17.12.2019, p. 78).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/102 of 20 January 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 20, 24.1.2020, p. 2).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/144 of 3 February 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 32, 4.2.2020, p. 16).

(4)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/511 of 26 March 2020 appointing the members and alternate members of the Committee of the Regions for the period from 26 January 2020 to 25 January 2025 (OJ L 113, 8.4.2020, p. 18).