do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-353/20: Action brought on 3 June 2020 — AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN)
Date: 2020-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, office supplies, paper, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2020262EN.01003201.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/32






Action brought on 3 June 2020 — AC Milan v EUIPO — InterES (ACM 1899 AC MILAN)
(Case T-353/20)
(2020/C 262/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Associazione Calcio Milan SpA (AC Milan) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: InterES Handels- und Dienstleistungs Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ACM 1899 AC MILAN in red, black and white — International registration designating the European Union No 1 329 545

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2020 in Case R 161/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceeding.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 10(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) 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.
Case C-230/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvijas) lodged on 3 June 2020 — AAS ‘BTA Báltica Insúmanse Company’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
Date: 2020-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs duties, customs formalities, enforcement of ruling, import (EU), limitation of legal proceedings, principle of legal certainty








C_2020255EN.01001401.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvijas) lodged on 3 June 2020 — AAS ‘BTA Báltica Insúmanse Company’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
(Case C-230/20)
(2020/C 255/17)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AAS ‘BTA Báltica Insúmanse Company’

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred







1.


Must the guarantor referred to in Article 195 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, be regarded as a debtor within the meaning of Article 221(3) [of the regulation] to whom, therefore, the time limit established in Article 221(3) applies?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, can the guarantor be regarded, pursuant to Article 232(1)(a) of the regulation, as the person subject to enforcement of the decision or the debt, or the person concerned by the enforcement, to whom, the Member State’s rules on enforcement, including those on time limits, therefore apply?










3.


If, under the applicable laws of the European Union, the guarantor is not regarded as a debtor within the meaning of Article 221(3) of the regulation or as the subject of the enforcement of the decision or as a person concerned by the enforcement, can the requirement implied by the principle of legal certainty, which requires a reasonable limitation period to be observed, be applied to the guarantor?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1, Special edition in Latvian: Chapter 02 Volume 004 P. 307.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17, Special edition in Latvian: Chapter 02 Volume 010 P. 239).
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.): 0,00 % on 1 June 2020 Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 2 June 2020 2020/C 183/02
Date: 2020-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2020183EN.01000301.xml










3.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/3






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 June 2020
Euro exchange rates (2)

2 June 2020
(2020/C 183/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1174 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,83 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4541 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89083 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4520 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0741 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6798 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,645 




HUF


Hungarian forint


345,67 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3993 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8423 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,5698 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6310 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5106 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6609 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7680 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5668 




KRW


South Korean won


1 364,42 




ZAR


South African rand


19,2755 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9413 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5848 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 107,32 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7797 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,071 




RUB


Russian rouble


76,8001 




THB


Thai baht


35,271 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,9499 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,4448 




INR


Indian rupee


84,0390 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-340/20: Action brought on 3 June 2020 — Galván Fernández-Guillén v SRB
Date: 2020-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, banking supervision, company in difficulties, damages, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence, shareholder








C_2020247EN.01004402.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/44






Action brought on 3 June 2020 — Galván Fernández-Guillén v SRB
(Case T-340/20)
(2020/C 247/61)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: José María Galván Fernández-Guillén (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Romero Rey and I. Salama Salama, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 of 17 March 2020 determining whether compensation needs to be granted to the shareholders and creditors in respect of which the resolution actions concerning Banco Popular Español SA have been effected;










—


order the SRB to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea, alleging infringement of the fundamental right to private property, in that Banco Popular had, at the time of the resolution, a positive net worth, which did not justify the applicant being deprived of his shares without compensation.










2.


Second plea, alleging infringement of the right to property, in that no clear valuation criteria were applied in granting the resolution of Banco Popular, since the new criteria approved by Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/344 (1) which only came into force on 29 March 2018 — that is, eight months after the resolution of Banco Popular — were applied retroactively.










3.


Third plea, alleging a lack of impartiality on the part of Deloitte in carrying out Valuation 3, on which Decision SRB/EES/2020/52 relied exclusively, given that the same auditing company carried out Provisional Valuation 2.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the SRB continues to keep certain information confidential and hidden from the shareholders and creditors of Banco Popular, on the pretext that ‘the disclosure thereof may infringe the Board’s rights of defence in the ongoing litigation’.






(1)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/344 of 14 November 2017 supplementing Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to regulatory technical standards specifying the criteria relating to the methodologies for valuation of difference in treatment in resolution (OJ 2018 L 67, p. 3).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9850 – EQT Fund management/Schülke & Mayr) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 183/04
Date: 2020-06-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cosmetics industry, disease prevention, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, pharmaceutical industry, public hygiene








C_2020183EN.01000601.xml










3.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9850 – EQT Fund management/Schülke & Mayr) –
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 183/04)

1.   
On 25 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:






—


EQT VIII (‘EQT’, Luxembourg), controlled by EQT Fund Management S.à r.l.,










—


Schülke & Mayr GmbH (‘Schülke’, Germany).




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


EQT. EQT is an investment fund that seeks to make investments primarily in Europe, with a focus on Northern Europe.










—


Schülke. Schülke is active in infection prevention and hygiene. Schülke develops, produces and distributes antiseptics for wound care, disinfectants, medical and cosmetic skin care products and preservatives.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.9850 – EQT Fund management/Schülke & Mayr
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case C-246/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 3 June 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie v EA
Date: 2020-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: driving instruction, driving licence








C_2020297EN.01002801.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent (Belgium) lodged on 3 June 2020 — Openbaar Ministerie v EA
(Case C-246/20)
(2020/C 297/37)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen, afdeling Gent

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Openbaar Ministerie

Respondent: EA

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that a driving licence must be automatically recognised by the Member States where the issue of that document is based on the exchange of a driving licence which was registered as lost in the issuing country and had ceased to be valid in the issuing country?










2.


May a Member State refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC if the exchange took place at a time when the Member State which issued the original driving licence had withdrawn the right to drive until the completion of reintegration tests?










3.


May a Member State in any event refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document if the Member State on the territory of which the question concerning the recognition of the driving licence document arises can establish, on the basis of concrete and proven facts, that the right to drive no longer existed at the time when the driving licence document was exchanged?










4.


May a Member State in any event refuse to recognise the exchanged driving licence document if the recognition question concerns a national of the Member State in which the question of recognition arises, and that Member State establishes that, on the basis of concrete and proven facts, the person concerned, at the time of the exchange and/or at the time of the request for recognition, did not meet the minimum standards for obtaining a driving licence in that Member State?










5.


Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2006/126/EC be interpreted as creating an inequality between a national of a Member State whose right to drive is only restored after the completion of the reintegration tests, and a national on whom reintegration tests were also imposed, but who in the meantime acquires a foreign driving licence, whether or not he fails to comply with the residence requirement, or by means of an exchange on the basis of a driving licence which had ceased to be valid in the Member State of issue?






(1)  Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18).
Information from the Commission concerning the non-application of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698 by Poland COVID-19 outbreak Regulation (EU) 2020/698 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the COVID-19 outbreak concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations and the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation (OJ L 165, 27.5.2020, p. 10) 2020/C 183 I/01
Date: 2020-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Poland, commercial vehicle, driving period, epidemic, infectious disease, motor vehicle, road safety, roadworthiness tests, speed control, technical regulations








CI2020183EN.01000101.xml










3.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 183/1






Information from the Commission concerning the non-application of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698 by Poland
COVID-19 outbreak


Regulation (EU) 2020/698 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the COVID-19 outbreak concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations and the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation (OJ L 165, 27.5.2020, p. 10)


(2020/C 183 I/01)

Notification by: Poland
In conformity with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698, Poland informed the Commission on 29 May 2020 that it has decided not to apply certain provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2020/698.

Provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698 that Poland has decided not to apply:







—


Article 4(1) concerning the regular inspections of tachographs in road transport under Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1);










—


Article 5(1) concerning the time limits for the periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers under Directive 2014/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (2);










—


Article 5(2) concerning the validity of roadworthiness certificates under Directive 2014/45/EU.






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 165/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on tachographs in road transport, repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport and amending Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ L 60, 28.2.2014, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2014/45/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on periodic roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers and repealing Directive 2009/40/EC (OJ L 127, 29.4.2014, p. 51).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9676 – Lov Group/Banijay/ESG) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 183/07
Date: 2020-06-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: audiovisual production, economic concentration, game of chance, hotel industry, merger control, online game, television








C_2020183EN.01001101.xml










3.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 183/11






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9676 – Lov Group/Banijay/ESG)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 183/07)

1.   
On 25 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:






—


Lov Group Invest (‘Lov Group’, France),










—


Banijay Group (‘Banijay’, France), controlled by Lov Group and DeAgostini,










—


Endemol Shine Group (‘ESG’, the Netherlands), controlled by Apollo Management and The Walt Disney Company.




Lov Group acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Banijay and ESG.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Lov Group: production of TV content (through Banijay) in Europe, activities in the online gambling and luxury hotels sectors,










—


for Banijay: creation, production and distribution of entertainment TV content for broadcasters in Europe and other countries worldwide, and










—


for ESG: production and distribution of TV content and licensing to third parties, development of general entertainment content in Europe and other countries worldwide.






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.9676 – Lov Group/Banijay/ESG
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-344/20: Action brought on 3 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Unión Detallistas Españoles (unit)
Date: 2020-06-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, essential oil, household article, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2020247EN.01004501.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/45






Action brought on 3 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Unión Detallistas Españoles (unit)
(Case T-344/20)
(2020/C 247/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Unión Detallistas Españoles S. Coop. Unide (Madrid, Spain)

Details of the procedure before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark ‘unit’ — Application for registration No 16 542 078

Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 in Case R 2005/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider that the proof of use regarding sales, during the relevant period, in respect of the Spanish trade marks No 1795078 and No 2289074 — which required proof of use — is insufficient due to the lack or shortage of such proof and, consequently, by stating that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks on the part of consumers.










—


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