do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-564/15 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission (Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 — Calls for proposals — Decision establishing the list of proposals selected — Rejection of the proposal — Manifest errors of assessment — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, action programme, equal treatment, financial aid, invitation to tender, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network








C_2020247EN.01000801.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/8






Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v Commission
(Case T-564/15 RENV) (1)

(Financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) - Transport sector for the period 2014-2020 - Calls for proposals - Decision establishing the list of proposals selected - Rejection of the proposal - Manifest errors of assessment - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)
(2020/C 247/12)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: Y. de Vries and J. de Kok, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Kalėda and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2015) 5274 final of 31 July 2015 establishing the list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector, following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay its own costs as well as those incurred by Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV relating to the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice, in Case C-635/16 P, and relating to the initial proceedings before the General Court, in Case T-564/15;










3.


Orders Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor to pay the costs relating to the proceedings referred back to the General Court, in Case T-564/15 RENV.






(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards the resources for the specific allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative’ (COM(2020) 206 final — 2020/0086 (COD))
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU initiative, commitment of expenditure, distribution of EU funding, economic and social cohesion, employment aid, general budget (EU), young person, young worker, youth employment








C_2020311EN.01008301.xml










18.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/83






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 as regards the resources for the specific allocation for the Youth Employment Initiative’
(COM(2020) 206 final — 2020/0086 (COD))
(2020/C 311/15)






Referral


European Parliament, 27.5.2020
Council, 2.6.2020




Legal basis


Article 177, al. 1 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship




Adopted at plenary


10.6.2020




Plenary session No


552




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


219/0/2




Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal, it decided, at its 552nd plenary session of 10 and 11 June 2020 (meeting of 10 June 2020), by 219 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 10 June 2020.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER
Case C-255/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta v Punto Nautica Srl
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, Latium, excise duty, local tax, petrol








C_2020279EN.01003501.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/35






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta v Punto Nautica Srl
(Case C-255/20)
(2020/C 279/47)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio delle dogane di Gaeta

Respondent: Punto Nautica Srl

Question referred

Must the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down in Case C-82/12, and Article 3(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC, (1) be interpreted as precluding the provisions of Italian law currently in force as set out in Article 17 of Legislative Decree No 398 of 21 December 1990 and in Article 3(1) of Lazio Regional Law … No 19 of 2011, which appear to introduce a regional tax on transport petrol which is not for ‘specific purposes’ as required by the abovementioned Community directive?


(1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (codification)’ (COM(2020) 48 final — 2020/0029 (COD))
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, arms trade, codification of EU law, exchange of information, firearms and munitions, information system, personal weapon








C_2020311EN.01005201.xml










18.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 311/52






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (codification)’
(COM(2020) 48 final — 2020/0029 (COD))
(2020/C 311/06)






Referral


European Parliament, 9.3.2020
Council, 27.2.2020




Legal basis


Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Single Market, Production and Consumption




Adopted at plenary


10.6.2020




Plenary session No


552




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


210/0/4




Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinions CES 1166/1987 (1), CESE 1157/2006 (2) and CESE 6789/2015 (3), it decided, at its 552nd plenary session of 10 and 11 June 2020 (meeting of 10 June), by 210 votes with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 10 June 2020.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Luca JAHIER




(1)  OJ C 35, 8.2.1988, p. 5.

(2)  OJ C 318, 23.12.2006, p. 83.

(3)  OJ C 264, 20.7.2016, p. 77.
Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the facilitation of the issuance of visas
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, agreement (EU), external border of the EU, foreign national








L_2020182EN.01000201.xml










10.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 182/2







Information relating to the entry into force of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the facilitation of the issuance of visas

The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Belarus on the facilitation of the issuance of visas will enter into force on 1 July 2020, the procedure provided for in Article 14(1) of the Agreement having been completed on 29 May 2020.
Case C-256/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: debt, injunction, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, residence, right to justice








C_2020271EN.01002902.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD
(Case C-256/20)
(2020/C 271/38)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Toplofikatsia Sofia EAD

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights arising from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that, when determining the habitual residence of a debtor as a condition required under national law for the conduct of unilateral formal proceedings in which evidence is not taken, such as order for payment procedures, the national court is obliged to interpret any reasonable suspicion that the debtor is habitually resident in another State of the European Union as a lack of a legal basis for issuing an order for payment or as a basis for the order for payment not acquiring the force of res judicata?










2.


Must Article 5(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with the principle that the national court must guarantee procedural rights for the effective protection of rights deriving from EU law, be interpreted as meaning that a national court, which, after having issued an order for payment against a particular debtor, has established that that debtor is unlikely to be habitually resident in the State of the court and, provided that this constitutes an obstacle to the issuing of an order for payment against such a debtor under national law, is obliged to annul, of its own motion, the order for payment issued, despite the absence of an express statutory provision to that effect?










3.


If the [second] question is answered in the negative, are the provisions referred to in that question to be interpreted as obliging the national court to annul the order for payment issued where it has carried out a check and established with certainty that the debtor is not habitually resident in the State of the court seised?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 9 June 2020 2020/C 195/03
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020195EN.01000301.xml










10.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/3






Euro exchange rates (1)

9 June 2020
(2020/C 195/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1294 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,14 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4568 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89120 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4188 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0770 




ISK


Iceland króna


149,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,5418 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,634 




HUF


Hungarian forint


345,00 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4464 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8365 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,6859 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6267 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5187 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7530 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7375 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5708 




KRW


South Korean won


1 353,30 




ZAR


South African rand


18,8935 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0025 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5719 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 917,20 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8287 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,521 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,7388 




THB


Thai baht


35,418 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,4944 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,5766 




INR


Indian rupee


85,3085 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-708/19: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Bujar v Commission
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, claim, staff regulations (EU), transfer of pension rights








C_2020262EN.01003804.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/38






Order of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Bujar v Commission
(Case T-708/19) (1)

(2020/C 262/54)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 10, 13.1.2020.
Case T-361/20: Action brought on 10 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Europull (GREEN COAST)
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020255EN.01002802.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/28






Action brought on 10 June 2020 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Europull (GREEN COAST)
(Case T-361/20)
(2020/C 255/37)
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: Europull Srl (Carpi, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark GREEN COAST — EU trade mark No 14 936 694

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 March 2020 in Case R 1555/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the applicant’s appeal, it confirms the Cancellation Division’s decision No 13 595 C declaring the invalidity of the mark and confirms the cancellation of EU trade mark No 14 936 694 GREEN COAST (figurative), in Class 25;










—


order any party or parties who oppose this application to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


The contested decision infringes the regulations on the substantiation of the earlier right (Italian mark with application No MO1997C000283 and Registration No 0001247661), in essence, in paragraph 22 of that decision, by finding that right to be substantiated, and also in paragraphs 15 to 21, which contain the main reasons for that conclusion;










—


Infringement of Article 12(2)(a) and Article 2(2)(b)(i) — to which it refers — and also Article 7(2)(a)(ii) — mutatis mutandis — of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.










—


Infringement of Article 18(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and the Council.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9716 – AMS/OSRAM) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 195/04
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: advanced technology industry, economic concentration, lighting, lighting equipment, merger control








C_2020195EN.01000401.xml










10.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/4






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9716 – AMS/OSRAM)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 195/04)

1.   
On 29 May 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


AMS (Austria),










—


OSRAM (Germany)




AMS acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of OSRAM. The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 7 November 2019.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for AMS: providing high-performance sensing technologies in the consumer, communications, automotive, industrial and medical end-markets with a focus on three strategic pillars: optical, imaging and audio sensing,










—


for OSRAM: providing lighting solutions and sensors, visualisation and light-based treatments, which include from LEDs to other semiconductor-based technologies, such as infrared emitters, lasers and sensors, to light management systems, and to traditional and speciality lamps.






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.9716 – AMS/OSRAM
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-717/18: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — B.D v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark PHILIBON — Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON — Relative ground for refusal — Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention — Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, fruit, fruit juice, fruit product, preserved product, registered trade mark, syrup, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2020255EN.01001501.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/15






Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — B.D v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON)
(Case T-717/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark PHILIBON - Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON - Relative ground for refusal - Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2020/C 255/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: B.D. — Boyer Developpement (Moissac, France) (represented by: É. Junca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, A. Folliard-Monguiral, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Philicon-97 AD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: V. Pavlov and M. Lazarov, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 (Case R 375/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Philicon 97 and B. D. — Boyer Developpement.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders B. D. — Boyer Developpement to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.
Case T-707/19: Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — FF&GB v EUIPO (ONE-OFF) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark ONE-OFF — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, fancy leather goods and glove-making industry, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020247EN.01001201.xml










27.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 247/12






Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — FF&GB v EUIPO (ONE-OFF)
(Case T-707/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark ONE-OFF - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 247/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: FF&GB Srl (Mantua, Italy) (represented by: M. Locatelli, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 August 2019 (Case R 239/2019-5), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ONE-OFF as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FF&GB Srl to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.
Case C-251/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Gtflix Tv v DR
Date: 2020-06-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, damages, defamation, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2020297EN.01002802.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 10 June 2020 — Gtflix Tv v DR
(Case C-251/20)
(2020/C 297/38)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gtflix Tv

Defendant: DR

Question referred

Must Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a person who, considering that his or her rights have been infringed by the dissemination of derogatory comments on the internet, brings proceedings not only for the rectification of information and the removal of content but also for compensation for the resulting non-material and material damage, may claim, before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content published online is or was accessible, compensation for the damage caused in the territory of that Member State, in accordance with the judgment in eDate Advertising (paragraphs 51 and 52) [judgment of the Court of 25 October 2011, Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10], or whether, pursuant to the judgment in Svensk Handel (paragraph 48) [judgment of the Court of 17 October 2017, Case C-194/16], that person must make the application for compensation before the court with jurisdiction to order rectification of the information and removal of the derogatory comments?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).