do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-253/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Impexeco NV v Novartis AG
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, import (EU), import restriction, labelling, market approval, market-sharing agreement, medicinal product, quantitative restriction, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020297EN.01002901.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Impexeco NV v Novartis AG
(Case C-253/20)
(2020/C 297/39)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Impexeco NV

Respondent: Novartis AG

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States?










2.


If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions?










3.


Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)?
Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine 2020/C 193/07
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, natural person, self-determination, territorial law








C_2020193EN.01002901.xml










9.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/29






Notice for the attention of certain persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine
(2020/C 193/07)
The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Denis Valentinovich BEREZOVSKIY (no. 4), Mr. Aleksandr Viktorovich VITKO (no. 19), Mr. Vladislav Yurievich SURKOV (no. 29), Mr. Dmitry Nikolayevich KOZAK (no. 34), Mr. Sergei Ivanovich NEVEROV (no. 40), Mr. Sergey Gennadevich TSYPLAKOV (no. 47), Mr. Rashid Gumarovich NURGALIEV (no. 76), Mr. Vladimir ANTYUFEYEV (no. 87), Mr. Andrey Yurevich PINCHUK (no. 100), Mr. Viktor Petrovich VODOLATSKY (no. 109), Mr. Yevgeniy Vyacheslavovich ORLOV (no. 131), Ms. Ekaterina Vladimirovna GOGIASHVILI (no. 141), Mr. Zaur Raufovich ISMAILOV (no. 146), Mr. Konstantin Mikhailovich BAKHAREV (no. 153), Mr. Dmitry Anatolievich BELIK (no. 154), Mr. Andrey Vladimirovich CHEREZOV (no. 158), Mr. Evgeniy Petrovich GRABCHAK (no. 159), and the Crimean Republican Enterprise ‘Azov distillery plant’ (no. 17) and Federal state budget institution for science and research ‘All- Russia national scientific research institute for wine growing and wine making “Magarach” Russian Academy of Sciences’ (no. 19), persons and entities appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.
The Council is considering maintaining the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons and entities with new statements of reasons. Those persons and entities are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statements of reasons for their designation, before 16 June 2020, 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


(1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.
Case C-249/20 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-571/17, UG v Commission
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: absenteeism, contract staff, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, labour dispute, limitation of legal proceedings, professional qualifications, servant (EU), staff regulations








C_2020348EN.01000301.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/3






Appeal brought on 9 June 2020 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 2 April 2020 in Case T-571/17, UG v Commission
(Case C-249/20 P)
(2020/C 348/04)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin, L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: UG

Form of order sought







—


Set aside the judgment of the European Union (Eighth Chamber) of 2 April 2020, delivered in Case T-571/17, UG v Commission











—


Refer the case back to the General Court;










—


Reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


First ground of appeal: distortion of the facts (paragraphs 64 to 71 of the contested decision)
According to settled case-law, there exists a distortion of the facts subject to review by the Court where the assessment of the existing evidence is manifestly incorrect. Such distortion must be obvious from the documents before the Court
In the first part of the ground, the Commission claims that the General Court’s finding that the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE) set UG too short a timeframe within which to remedy professional incompetence is contradicted by the evidence in the file. The AECE did not require UG to meet all the objectives fixed in the 2015 appraisal and to restore a relationship of trust with all his work colleagues within a period of three months.
According to the second part of the ground, the General Court erroneously focused its consideration on the issue of unjustified absences and failed to take into account the recurrence of several aspects of professional incompetence noted in the decision of 17 October 2016 and the letter of 8 September 2016.










2.


Second ground of appeal: error in law (paragraphs 72 to 77 of the contested decision)
The General Court annulled the contested decision because of an error of fact without however demonstrating that that error was ‘manifest’. AECE has a broad discretion in respect of dismissal and the review by the General Court is limited to the issue of whether there has been a manifest error or a misuse of powers. The General Court identified an error in the contested decision which merely concerned one of the aspects of professional incompetence to which the AECE had drawn UG’s attention, an error which was not ‘manifest’ and could therefore not lead to the annulment of the contested decision.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 8 June 2020 2020/C 193/08
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020193EN.01003001.xml










9.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/30






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 June 2020
(2020/C 193/08)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1285 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,41 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4555 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89173 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3978 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0861 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,4603 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,585 




HUF


Hungarian forint


344,16 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4333 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8359 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,6574 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6156 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5126 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7460 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7291 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5700 




KRW


South Korean won


1 353,20 




ZAR


South African rand


18,9799 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9836 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5650 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 815,42 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8159 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,301 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,0563 




THB


Thai baht


35,474 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,5702 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,3220 




INR


Indian rupee


85,2410 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Information from the Commission concerning the non-application of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698 by Germany 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 193 I/01
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, commercial vehicle, epidemic, infectious disease, motor vehicle, road safety, roadworthiness tests, technical regulations








CI2020193EN.01000101.xml










9.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 193/1






Information from the Commission concerning the non-application of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698 by Germany
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 193 I/01)

Notification by: Germany
In conformity with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698, Germany informed the Commission on 5 June 2020 that it has decided not to apply certain provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2020/698.

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







—


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 (1);










—


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






(1)  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).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9836 – Bunker Holding/OceanConnect Marine) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 200/02
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, fuel oil, marine fuel, merger control, provision of services, purchase, risk management, supply








C_2020200EN.01000601.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9836 – Bunker Holding/OceanConnect Marine)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 200/02)
On 9 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 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 32020M9836. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU Extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts 2020/C 193/12
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Sweden, award of contract, carriage of passengers, rail transport








C_2020193EN.01004901.xml










9.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/49






Notice of a request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
Extension of the period for adoption of implementing acts
(2020/C 193/12)
On 13 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 SJ AB, concerns activities relating to the provision of railway passenger transport in Sweden. The relevant notice was published on page number 11 of OJ C 53 of 17 February 2020. The initial deadline was 3 July 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. Given SJ AB’s request to provide additional information and with the agreement of the Commission, the period available to the Commission for deciding on this request is hereby extended by 19 working days.
The final deadline therefore expires on 31 July 2020.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement procedures 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).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9843 – Colony Capital/PSP/NGD) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 193/10
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: computer centre, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2020193EN.01003201.xml










9.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/32






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9843 – Colony Capital/PSP/NGD)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 193/10)

1.   
On 2 June 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:






—


Colony Capital, Inc. (‘Colony Capital’, United States),










—


Public Sector Pension Investment Board (‘PSP’, Canada),










—


Next Generation Data Ltd (‘NGD’, United Kingdom).




Colony Capital and PSP acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of NGD.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Colony Capital: management of a global portfolio composed of, amongst other, investments in digital infrastructure, including macro cell towers, data centres, small cell networks and fibre networks,










—


for PSP: management of the pension plans of the Canadian Federal Public Service, the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Reserve Force,










—


for NGD: active in the design, building, operation and ongoing management of data centre solutions in the United Kingdom.






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.9843 – Colony Capital/PSP/NGD
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 C-254/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Economic Area, import (EU), import restriction, labelling, market approval, market-sharing agreement, medicinal product, quantitative restriction, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020297EN.01002902.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV
(Case C-254/20)
(2020/C 297/40)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: PI Pharma NV

Respondents: Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV

Questions referred







1.


Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States?










2.


If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions?










3.


Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)?
Case C-248/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Skatteverket v Skellefteå Industrihus Aktiebolag
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, building, property leasing, tax relief








C_2020279EN.01003401.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/34






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Skatteverket v Skellefteå Industrihus Aktiebolag
(Case C-248/20)
(2020/C 279/45)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Skatteverket

Defendant: Skellefteå Industrihus Aktiebolag

Question referred

Is it compatible with the VAT Directive, (1) in particular with Articles 137, 168, 184 to 187, 189 and 192 thereof, that a property owner, who opted for taxation of the construction of a building and who has deducted the input tax paid on the acquisitions relating to the building project, must immediately repay the total amount of input tax, together with interest, on the ground that the liability for tax ceases by reason of the discontinuance of the construction project before the building is completed and that there is therefore no letting?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Special Report 13/2020 ‘Biodiversity on farmland: CAP contribution has not halted the decline’ 2020/C 193/09
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU strategy, aid to agriculture, biodiversity, common agricultural policy, ecosystem, environmental impact, environmental protection, rural development, utilised agricultural area








C_2020193EN.01003101.xml










9.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 193/31






Special Report 13/2020
‘Biodiversity on farmland: CAP contribution has not halted the decline’
(2020/C 193/09)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report 13/2020 ‘Biodiversity on farmland: CAP contribution has not halted the decline’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu
Case T-363/20: Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE)
Date: 2020-06-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020255EN.01003001.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/30






Action brought on 9 June 2020 — Krasnyj Octyabr v EUIPO — Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE)
(Case T-363/20)
(2020/C 255/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PAO Moscow Confectionery Factory ‘Krasnyj Octyabr’ (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spółdzielnia ‘Pokój’ (Bielsko-Biała, Poland)

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 KRÓWKA MLECZNA Milk FUDGE — European Union trade mark No 15 371 255

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 April 2020 in Case R 1532/2019-1

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 60(1)(a) in conjunction with 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;










—


Infringement of the right to be heard.