do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-345/20: Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Robert Klingel v EUIPO (MEN+)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, animal skin, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020247EN.01004601.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/46






Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Robert Klingel v EUIPO (MEN+)
(Case T-345/20)
(2020/C 247/63)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Robert Klingel OHG (Pforzheim, Germany) (represented by M. Zick, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union trade mark ‘MEN+’ — Application No 17 985 949

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 March 2020 in Case R 1906/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in so far as the applicant is adversely affected;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Art. 7(1)(b), in particular read in conjunction with Art. 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-310/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Boudewijn Schokker v European Union Aviation Safety Agency (Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment procedure — Classification in grade — Conditions of Employment of Other Servants — Article 86 — European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) — General implementing provisions — Challenge of the proposed classification — Withdrawal of the offer of employment — Action for compensation — Principle of sound administration — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Breach of administrative duty — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Non-material damage — Compensation)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition (EU), contract staff, indemnification, job vacancy, recruitment, servant (EU)








C_2020262EN.01000702.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/7






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — Boudewijn Schokker v European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(Case C-310/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment procedure - Classification in grade - Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - Article 86 - European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) - General implementing provisions - Challenge of the proposed classification - Withdrawal of the offer of employment - Action for compensation - Principle of sound administration - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Breach of administrative duty - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Non-material damage - Compensation)
(2020/C 262/10)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Boudewijn Schokker (represented by: T. Martin and S. Orlandi, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Aviation Safety Agency (represented by: S. Rostren, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the order of the General Court of the European Union of 8 February 2019, Schokker v EASA (T-817/17, not published, EU:T:2019:74);










2.


Orders the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to pay compensation in the sum of EUR 7 500 to Mr Boudewijn Schokker;










3.


Orders the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) to pay its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance in Case T-817/17 and the appeal proceedings as well as those incurred by Mr Boudewijn Schokker relating to both those proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.
Case C-187/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — European External Action Service v Stéphane De Loecker (Appeal — Civil Service — European External Action Service (EEAS) — Member of the temporary staff — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Rejection of the request — Action for annulment and damages — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to be heard — Article 266 TFEU — Compliance with the annulling judgment)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, harassment at work, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, servant (EU), temporary employment








C_2020262EN.01000701.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/7






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 June 2020 — European External Action Service v Stéphane De Loecker
(Case C-187/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil Service - European External Action Service (EEAS) - Member of the temporary staff - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Rejection of the request - Action for annulment and damages - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to be heard - Article 266 TFEU - Compliance with the annulling judgment)
(2020/C 262/09)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Stéphane De Loecker (represented by: J.-N. Louis, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Case C-828/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris — France) — Trendsetteuse SARL v DCA SARL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Self-employed commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Concept of ‘commercial agent’ — Negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal — Intermediary lacking the power to change the conditions of sale and the prices of the goods that intermediary sells)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: purchase, sale, sales representative, self-employed person, selling price, trade intermediary








C_2020262EN.01000501.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/5






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Paris — France) — Trendsetteuse SARL v DCA SARL
(Case C-828/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Self-employed commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Concept of ‘commercial agent’ - Negotiation of the sale or purchase of goods on behalf of the principal - Intermediary lacking the power to change the conditions of sale and the prices of the goods that intermediary sells)
(2020/C 262/06)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Trendsetteuse SARL

Defendant: DCA SARL

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that a person does not need to have the power to change the prices of the goods which he or she sells on behalf of the principal in order to be classified as a commercial agent within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Information notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority based on Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 185/03
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, air transport, inland transport, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2020185EN.01000301.xml










4.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/3






Information notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority based on Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Establishment of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 185/03)






Member State


Norway




Concerned routes


Harstad/Narvik – Bodø v.v.




Date of entry into force of the public service obligations


1 January 2021




Address where the text and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the modified public service obligations can be obtained


Ministry of Transport
PO Box 8010 Dep
0030 Oslo
NORWAY
Tel. +47 22248353
postmottak@sd.dep.no
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/id2000006/?documenttype=dokumenter/anbud
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 3 June 2020 2020/C 185/02
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020185EN.01000201.xml










4.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 June 2020
(2020/C 185/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1194 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,54 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4547 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89065 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4588 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0793 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6777 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,660 




HUF


Hungarian forint


345,89 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4135 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8393 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,5703 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6280 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5173 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6757 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7532 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5656 




KRW


South Korean won


1 364,09 




ZAR


South African rand


19,0844 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9599 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5720 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 885,35 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7703 




PHP


Philippine peso


55,923 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,0055 




THB


Thai baht


35,339 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,7993 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2772 




INR


Indian rupee


84,5055 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Information notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority based on Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 185/04
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: Norway, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2020185EN.01000401.xml










4.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 185/4






Information notice from the EFTA Surveillance Authority based on Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 185/04)






Member State


Norway




Concerned routes


Harstad/Narvik – Bodø v.v.




Period of validity of the contract


1 January 2021 – 31 March 2022




Deadline for submission of tenders


10 August 2020 (tentative date)




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the modified public service obligations can be obtained


Ministry of Transport
PO Box 8010 Dep
0030 Oslo
NORWAY
Tel. +47 22248353
postmottak@sd.dep.no
https://www.regjeringen.no/en/find-document/id2000006/?documenttype=dokumenter/anbud
Case C-3/19: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Asmel societá consortile a r.l. v A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Central purchasing bodies — Small municipalities — Restriction to only two organisational models for the central purchasing bodies — Prohibition of use of a central purchasing body under private law and with the participation of private entities — Territorial restriction of the activity of central purchasing bodies)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: autonomy, buying group, consortium, freedom to provide services, municipality, national law, public contract, public procurement








C_2020262EN.01000502.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Asmel societá consortile a r.l. v A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione
(Case C-3/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Central purchasing bodies - Small municipalities - Restriction to only two organisational models for the central purchasing bodies - Prohibition of use of a central purchasing body under private law and with the participation of private entities - Territorial restriction of the activity of central purchasing bodies)
(2020/C 262/07)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Asmel societá consortile a r.l.

Defendant: A.N.A.C. — Autorità Nazionale Anticorruzione

Intervener: Associazione Nazionale Aziende Concessionarie Servizi entrate (Anacap)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which restricts the organisational autonomy of small local authorities to use a central purchasing body to only two exclusively public organisational models, without the participation of private persons or undertakings.










2.


Articles 1(10) and 11 of Directive 2004/18, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law which limits the scope of action of central purchasing bodies set up by local authorities to the territory of those authorities.






(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9666 – Deutsche Asphalt/KEMNA BAU Andrae/Heideasphalt) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 204/03
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building industry, economic concentration, merger control, mining industry, petroleum product, transport infrastructure








C_2020204EN.01000901.xml










18.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/9






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9666 – Deutsche Asphalt/KEMNA BAU Andrae/Heideasphalt)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 204/03)
On 4 June 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 German 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 32020M9666. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-354/20: Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Kfz-Gewerbe v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business management, cultural event, education, registered trade mark, service, sporting event, telecommunications, trade-mark law








C_2020262EN.01003301.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/33






Action brought on 4 June 2020 — Kfz-Gewerbe v EUIPO — The Blink Fish (Representation of a fish)
(Case T-354/20)
(2020/C 262/44)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wirtschaftsgesellschaft des Kfz-Gewerbes mbH (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: N. Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Blink Fish Srl (Milan, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark (Representation of a fish) — European Union trade mark No 17 301 359

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 April 2020 in Case R 2333/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the contested decision as far as the following services of the contested European Union trade mark application No 17 301 359 are concerned:






—


class 35: Advertising, Business management;










—


class 38: Telecommunication services;










—


class 41: Entertainment services, Sporting and cultural activities, Teaching, Training;














—


order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in the failure to state reasons in the contested decision of the Board of Appeal.
Case C-301/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Thomas Leonhard v DSL-Bank — a branch of DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2002/65/EC — Distance loan agreement — Right of withdrawal — Consequences — Article 7(4) — Return of the services received — Payment of compensation for benefit of use — Supplier’s obligation — Precluded)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, distance selling, indemnification, interest, loan, termination of a contract








C_2020262EN.01000201.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/2






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bonn — Germany) — Thomas Leonhard v DSL-Bank — a branch of DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG
(Case C-301/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2002/65/EC - Distance loan agreement - Right of withdrawal - Consequences - Article 7(4) - Return of the services received - Payment of compensation for benefit of use - Supplier’s obligation - Precluded)
(2020/C 262/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Thomas Leonhard

Defendant: DSL-Bank — a branch of DB Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC must be interpreted as meaning that, where a consumer exercises his or her right to withdraw from a distance loan agreement concluded with a supplier, that consumer has the right to receive from that supplier, subject to certain sums which the consumer himself or herself is required to pay to the supplier under the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) and (3) of that directive, the principal repaid and the interest paid under that agreement, but does not have the right to receive compensation for the benefit of use of that principal and that interest.


(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Case C-429/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2014/24/EU — Article 12(4) — Scope — Public contracts between entities within the public sector — Definition of ‘cooperation’ — None)
Date: 2020-06-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, public procurement, waste disposal








C_2020262EN.01000801.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/8






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Koblenz — Germany) — Remondis GmbH v Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel
(Case C-429/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2014/24/EU - Article 12(4) - Scope - Public contracts between entities within the public sector - Definition of ‘cooperation’ - None)
(2020/C 262/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Koblenz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Remondis GmbH

Defendant: Abfallzweckverband Rhein-Mosel-Eifel

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12(4)(a) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC must be interpreted as meaning that cooperation between contracting authorities cannot be said to exist where a contracting authority which is responsible for a task in the public interest within its territory does not itself perform the entirety of that task — which is incumbent on it alone under national law and for the performance of which a number of operations are required — but rather commissions another contracting authority that is independent of it and is likewise responsible for that public interest task within its own territory to carry out one of the operations required in return for consideration.


(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.