do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-332/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer)
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020255EN.01002302.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/23






Action brought on 29 May 2020 — König Ludwig International v EUIPO (Royal Bavarian Beer)
(Case T-332/20)
(2020/C 255/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: König Ludwig International GmbH & Co. KG (Geltendorf, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark Royal Bavarian Beer — Application for registration No 1 384 147

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 April 2020 in Case R 1714/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in combination with Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and the right to be heard;










—


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










—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-341/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — EAB v EUIPO (RADIOSHUTTLE)
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, registered trade mark, software, storage, trade-mark law








C_2020255EN.01002601.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/26






Action brought on 29 May 2020 — EAB v EUIPO (RADIOSHUTTLE)
(Case T-341/20)
(2020/C 255/33)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: EAB AB (Smålandsstenar, Sweden) (represented by: J. Norderyd and C. Sundén, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of EU word mark RADIOSHUTTLE — Application No 179 709 13

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 in Case R 1428/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, and










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-328/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Electrodomesticos Taurus v EUIPO — Shenzhen Aukey E-Business (AICOOK)
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020240EN.01003301.xml










20.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 240/33






Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Electrodomesticos Taurus v EUIPO — Shenzhen Aukey E-Business (AICOOK)
(Case T-328/20)
(2020/C 240/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Electrodomesticos Taurus, SL (Oliana, Spain) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Shenzhen Aukey E-Business Co. Ltd (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the EU word mark AICOOK No 17 174 236

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 March 2020 in Case R 2212/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


declare the use of the opposing trade mark to have been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7;










—


refuse registration of trade mark No 17 174 236 on account of its similarity to the opposing mark;










—


and, subsidiarily, to avoid registration of that trade mark, declare that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7;










—


order EUIPO’s Opposition Division to adopt a decision in relation to opposition B 3006619 (MUE No 17 174 236 AICOOK) finding that the use of the opposing trade mark has been established in relation to ‘Food processors’ in Class 7.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 47(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/628 of 8 April 2019 concerning model official certificates for certain animals and goods and amending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/759 as regards these model certificates (Official Journal of the European Union L 131 of 17 May 2019)
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: animal product, food inspection, food safety, health certificate, human nutrition, import (EU), information system, livestock, technical specification, veterinary inspection








L_2020167EN.01001701.xml










29.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 167/17







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/628 of 8 April 2019 concerning model official certificates for certain animals and goods and amending Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/759 as regards these model certificates

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 131 of 17 May 2019
)


On page 188, in Annex III, in Part XV, in the model official certificate for the entry into the Union for placing on the market of sprouts and seeds intended for the production of sprouts, in the first indent of Part I of the Notes:
for:


                  ‘Box reference I.25: Insert the appropriate HS code(s) such as: 0704 90, 0706 90, 0708 10, 0708 20, 0708 90, 0713 10, 0713 33, 0712 34, 0712 35, 0713 39, 0713 40, 0712 50, 0712 60, 0713 90, 0910 99, 1201 10, 1201 90, 1207 50, 1207 99, 1209 10, 1209 21, 1209 91 or 1214 90.’,

read:


                  ‘Box reference I.25: Insert the appropriate HS code(s) such as: 0704 90, 0706 90, 0708 10, 0708 20, 0708 90, 0713 10, 0713 33, 0713 34, 0713 35, 0713 39, 0713 40, 0713 50, 0713 60, 0713 90, 0910 99, 1201 10, 1201 90, 1207 50, 1207 99, 1209 10, 1209 21, 1209 91 or 1214 90.’.
Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union 2020/C 180/08
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, citrus fruit, common customs tariff, frozen product, soft fruit








C_2020180EN.01001301.xml










29.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/13






Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union
(2020/C 180/08)
Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 59, after the Explanatory Note to CN subheading

‘0811 20 51 Redcurrants’

, the following paragraph is inserted:








‘0811 90 95 




Other

This subheading does not include frozen mandarin segments where the membranes have been chemically removed (in general, heading 2008).’






On page 93, after the Explanatory Note to CN subheading

‘2008 30 51 Grapefruit segments, including pomelos’

, the following paragraph is inserted:








‘2008 30 55  and 2008 30 75 




Mandarins (including tangerines and satsumas); clementines, wilkings and other similar citrus hybrids

These subheadings include frozen mandarin segments where the membranes have been chemically removed.’






On page 93, after the Explanatory Note to CN subheading

‘2008 30 71 Grapefruit segments, including pomelos’

, the following paragraph is inserted:








‘2008 30 90 




Not containing added sugar

See the explanatory note to subheadings 2008 30 55  and 2008 30 75 .’







(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.
Case T-347/20: Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Sogia Ellas v Commission
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Greece, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, credit guarantee, interest rate subsidy, natural disaster, principle of legal certainty, reimbursement of aid, rights of the defence








C_2020271EN.01004001.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/40






Action brought on 29 May 2020 — Sogia Ellas v Commission
(Case T-347/20)
(2020/C 271/51)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Sogia Ellas AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Bernitsas, M. Androulakaki, A. Patsalia and E. Kalogiannis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the action admissible;










—


annul the decision in its entirety or, in the alternative, in so far as it concerns the applicant; (1)











—


in the alternative, annul Article 2 of the decision in so far as it requires the recovery of the amounts of aid at issue in total or, in the alternative, in so far as it concerns the applicant; and










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging misinterpretation and lack of reasoning on the part of the Commission concerning the existence of State aid: the criteria of economic advantage, selectivity and distortion of competition are not met.










2.


Second plea in law, claiming that the contested measures constitute compatible aid within the meaning of Article 107(2)(b) TFEU.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of sound administration, of the right to be heard and of the obligation to state reasons for the decision, and infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and Article 16(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (3) and that the decision was adopted in breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the decision was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality.






(1)  Commission Decision (EU) 2020/394 of 7 October 2019 concerning the measures SA.39119 (2016/C) (ex 2015/NN) (ex 2014/CP) implemented by the Hellenic Republic in the form of interest subsidies and guarantees linked to the fires of 2007 (notified under document C(2019) 7094) (OJ 2020 L 76, p. 4)

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

(3)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria 2020/C 180/05
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2020180EN.01001001.xml










29.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/10






Notice for the attention of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria
(2020/C 180/05)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities designated in Annex I to Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/719 (2), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/716 (4), concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons and entities designated in the abovementioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2013/255/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 should continue to apply to those persons and entities.
The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex III to Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 16 of the Regulation).
The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council before 1 March 2021, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s next review, pursuant to Article 34 of Decision 2013/255/CFSP and Article 32(4) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012, of the list of designated persons and entities.


(1)  OJ L 147, 1.6.2013, p. 14.

(2)  OJ L 168, 29.5.2020, p. 66.

(3)  OJ L 16, 19.1.2012, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 168, 29.5.2020, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9759 – Nexi/Intesa Sanpaolo (Merchant acquiring business)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 180/11
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic banking, electronic money, merger control, payment system, provision of services








C_2020180EN.01001701.xml










29.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/17






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9759 – Nexi/Intesa Sanpaolo (Merchant acquiring business))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 180/11)

1.   
On 19 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:






—


Nexi S.p.A (‘Nexi’, Italy), controlled by Advent International Corporation and Bain Capital Investors, L.L.C,










—


Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A’s merchant acquiring business (‘ISP’s merchant acquiring business’, Italy)




Nexi acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of ISP’s merchant acquiring business.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Nexi: Nexi is active in the card payment systems sector in Italy and provides a range of services for merchants, such as merchant acquiring, processing services and provision of POS terminals and related services,










—


for ISP’s merchant acquiring business: the provision of merchant acquiring services primarily in Italy.






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.9759 – Nexi/Intesa Sanpaolo (Merchant acquiring business)
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’).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 28 May 2020 2020/C 180/07
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020180EN.01001201.xml










29.5.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 180/12






Euro exchange rates (1)

28 May 2020
(2020/C 180/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1016 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,68 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4544 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89728 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5480 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0683 




ISK


Iceland króna


150,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,8553 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,017 




HUF


Hungarian forint


349,74 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4242 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8435 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,5072 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6624 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5155 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5407 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7776 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5621 




KRW


South Korean won


1 363,76 




ZAR


South African rand


19,1981 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8804 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5900 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 210,04 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7980 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,792 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,9343 




THB


Thai baht


35,108 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,8495 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,5580 




INR


Indian rupee


83,4635 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-225/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 29 May 2020 — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, land use, single payment scheme








C_2020297EN.01002302.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 29 May 2020 — Euro Delta Danube SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea
(Case C-225/20)
(2020/C 297/32)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Euro Delta Danube SRL

Defendant: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

Question referred







1.


Are the provisions of Article 2(23) and of Article 19 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance to be interpreted as precluding national legislation that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, imposes administrative penalties on the farmer for over-declaration on the ground that he does not meet the eligibility criteria for the area considered over-declared, inasmuch as he cultivates an area of land with aquaculture facilities, held under a concession agreement, without providing evidence of the grantor’s consent that the land be used for agricultural purposes?






(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 640/2014 of 11 March 2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system and conditions for refusal or withdrawal of payments and administrative penalties applicable to direct payments, rural development support and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 181, p. 48).
Case C-245/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2020 — X, Z v Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
Date: 2020-05-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, disclosure of information, judicial proceedings, personal data, press








C_2020297EN.01002701.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the rechtbank Midden-Nederland (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2020 — X, Z v Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens
(Case C-245/20)
(2020/C 297/36)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Midden-Nederland

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: X, Z

Defendant: Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens

Question referred







1.


Is Article 55(3) of the General Data Protection Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘processing operations of courts acting in their judicial capacity’ can be understood to mean the provision by a judicial authority of access to procedural documents containing personal data, where such access is granted by making copies of those procedural documents available to a journalist, as described in the present order for reference?






a.


In answering that question, is it relevant whether the national supervisory authority’s supervision of that form of data processing affects independent judicial decisions in specific cases?










b.


In answering that question, is it relevant that, according to the judicial authority, the nature and purpose of the data processing is to inform a journalist in order to enable the journalist to better report on a public hearing in court proceedings, thereby serving the interests of openness and transparency in the administration of justice?










c.


In answering that question, is it relevant whether there is any express legal basis for such data processing under national law?










(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (GDPR) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).