do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-365/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020255EN.01003101.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/31






Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe)
(Case T-365/20)
(2020/C 255/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Linz am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker und K. Middelhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for an EU position mark (Form of a pattern of a sole of a shoe) — Application for registration No 14 576 284

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2020 in Case R 1706/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-634/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against JI (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA — Minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties involving illicit drug trafficking — Article 2(1)(c) — Article 4(2)(a) — Concept of ‘large quantities of drugs’ — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Equal treatment — Articles 20 and 21 — Principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties — Article 49)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal liability, drug traffic, equal treatment, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, legality, psychotropic substance








C_2020271EN.01000502.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/5






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku — Poland) — Criminal proceedings against JI
(Case C-634/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA - Minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties involving illicit drug trafficking - Article 2(1)(c) - Article 4(2)(a) - Concept of ‘large quantities of drugs’ - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Equal treatment - Articles 20 and 21 - Principle of legality of criminal offences and penalties - Article 49)
(2020/C 271/06)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku

Party in the main criminal proceedings

JI

Intervener: Prokuratura Rejonowa w Słupsku

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(2)(a) of Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, and Articles 20, 21 and 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from classifying as a criminal offence the possession of a significant quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances both for personal consumption and for the purposes of illicit drug trafficking, while leaving the interpretation of the concept of ‘significant quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances’ to the discretion of the national courts, on a case-by-case basis, provided that that interpretation is reasonably foreseeable.


(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Case C-378/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — proceedings brought by Prezident Slovenskej republiky (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Internal market in electricity — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 35(4) and (5) — Independence of regulatory authorities — National legislation transferring the power to appoint the president of the national regulatory authority from the Head of State to the government — national ministries participating in price-setting procedures)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, appointment of staff, electrical energy, energy law, government, head of State, ministry, power of decision, president of an institution, price of energy








C_2020271EN.01001802.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/18






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — proceedings brought by Prezident Slovenskej republiky
(Case C-378/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Internal market in electricity - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 35(4) and (5) - Independence of regulatory authorities - National legislation transferring the power to appoint the president of the national regulatory authority from the Head of State to the government - national ministries participating in price-setting procedures)
(2020/C 271/25)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Ústavný súd Slovenskej republiky

Party to the main proceedings

Prezident Slovenskej republiky

In the presence of: Národná rada Slovenskej republiky, Vláda Slovenskej republiky

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009, concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that the government of that State is competent to appoint and dismiss the president of the national regulatory authority, to the extent that all the requirements laid down by those provisions are complied with, which is for the referring court to review.










2.


Article 35(4) and (5) of Directive 2009/72 must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation of a Member State which, to ensure the public interest is protected, prescribes that representatives of ministries of that State participate in certain procedures before the national regulatory body concerning price setting, to the extent that that authority’s independence in decision-making is respected, which is for the referring court to review.






(1)  JO C 238 du 15.7.2019.
Case T-358/20: Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, claim, principle of proportionality








C_2020279EN.01004202.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/42






Action brought on 11 June 2020 — Net Technologies Finland v REA
(Case T-358/20)
(2020/C 279/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Net Technologies Finland Oy (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: Research Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that i) the Research Executive Agency has breached its contractual obligations under the Grant Agreement FP7-SEC-2012-312484, concluded in the context of Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities, ii) the claim formulated in the debit notes no 3242005872 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 171 342,97 for unjustified contribution and no 3242005825 concerning the reimbursement of the amount of EUR 17 134,30 for liquidated damages, is unfounded, and iii) the corresponding costs for the in-house consultants are eligible; and,










—


order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the REA has misinterpreted the provisions regarding eligibility of costs and failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, by issuing the contested debit notes, on the grounds that the costs for in-house consultants met the eligibility criteria, set out in the Grant Agreement and thus they do not give rise to any reimbursement claim.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the REA failed to perform the contract in good faith.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the REA has violated the principle of proportionality.
Case T-516/19: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA (Arbitration clause — ‘Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’ (2014-2020) — Project ‘European Travellers Club: Account-Based Travelling across the European Union — ETC’ — Grant agreement — Decision of INEA declaring ineligible certain costs incurred in the context of subcontracts — Misidentification of the defendant — Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable — Legitimate expectations — Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, costing, cross-border cooperation, public transport, subcontracting, ticket, traveller








C_2020262EN.01002501.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/25






Order of the General Court of 11 June 2020 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA
(Case T-516/19) (1)

(Arbitration clause - ‘Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation’ (2014-2020) - Project ‘European Travellers Club: Account-Based Travelling across the European Union — ETC’ - Grant agreement - Decision of INEA declaring ineligible certain costs incurred in the context of subcontracts - Misidentification of the defendant - Measure which is part of a purely contractual context from which it is inseparable - Legitimate expectations - Action in part inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2020/C 262/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: VDV eTicket Service GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission (represented by: R. Pethke and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (represented by: I. Ramallo and P. Rosa Plaza, acting as Agents, and R. van der Hout and C. Wagner, lawyers)

Re:

First, application under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that INEA’s failure to acknowledge, in its letter Ares(2019)3151305 of 13 May 2019, costs in the amount of EUR 407 443,04 in the context of the Horizon 2020 programme, is unlawful, and second and in the alternative, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of that letter in so far as it declared ineligible the costs in that amount.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible and in part as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


VDV eTicket Service GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.
Case C-833/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège — Belgium) — SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Articles 2 to 5 — Scope — Utilitarian object — Concept of ‘work’ — Copyright protection of works — Conditions — Shape of a product which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Folding bicycle)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, cycle and motorcycle industry, industrial property, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2020271EN.01000901.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/9






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège — Belgium) — SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech/Get2Get
(Case C-833/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Articles 2 to 5 - Scope - Utilitarian object - Concept of ‘work’ - Copyright protection of works - Conditions - Shape of a product which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Folding bicycle)
(2020/C 271/12)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd

Defendant: Chedech/Get2Get

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2 to 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the copyright protection provided for therein applies to a product whose shape is, at least in part, necessary to obtain a technical result, where that product is an original work resulting from intellectual creation, in that, through that shape, its author expresses his creative ability in an original manner by making free and creative choices in such a way that that shape reflects his personality, which it is for the national court to verify, bearing in mind all the relevant aspects of the dispute in the main proceedings.


(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case C-206/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — ‘KOB’ SIA v Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 63 TFEU — Freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital — Directive 2006/123/EC — Acquisition of agricultural land in Latvia for the purpose of use — System of prior authorisation for legal persons — Specific conditions applying only to legal persons controlled or represented by nationals of another Member State — Requirements for residence and knowledge of the official language of the Republic of Latvia — Direct discrimination on grounds of nationality)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: acquisition of property, agricultural land, company member, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of capital, language skills, legal person, official language, residence permit, right of establishment








C_2020271EN.01001501.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/15






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — ‘KOB’ SIA v Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija
(Case C-206/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 63 TFEU - Freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital - Directive 2006/123/EC - Acquisition of agricultural land in Latvia for the purpose of use - System of prior authorisation for legal persons - Specific conditions applying only to legal persons controlled or represented by nationals of another Member State - Requirements for residence and knowledge of the official language of the Republic of Latvia - Direct discrimination on grounds of nationality)
(2020/C 271/20)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘KOB’ SIA

Defendant: Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9, 10 and 14 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the right for a legal person to acquire agricultural land located in the territory of that Member State –– in cases where the member or members who together represent more than half of the voting rights in the company, and all persons who are entitled to represent that company, are nationals of other Member States –– conditional upon, first, submitting a certificate of registration of those members or representatives as residents of that Member State and, second, a document demonstrating that they have a knowledge of the official language of that Member State corresponding to a level which enables them to at least converse on everyday subjects and on professional matters.


(1)  OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
Case C-448/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — WT v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 12 — Adoption of a decision to expel a long-term resident — Elements to be taken into consideration — National case-law — Failure to take those elements into consideration — Compatibility — Directive 2001/40/EC — Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals — Relevance)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, removal, residence permit








C_2020271EN.01001901.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/19






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — WT v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara
(Case C-448/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 12 - Adoption of a decision to expel a long-term resident - Elements to be taken into consideration - National case-law - Failure to take those elements into consideration - Compatibility - Directive 2001/40/EC - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals - Relevance)
(2020/C 271/26)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WT

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as interpreted by national case-law with reference to Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 concerning the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals, provides for the expulsion of any third-country national who holds a long-term residence permit who has committed a criminal offence punishable by a custodial sentence of at least one year, without it being necessary to examine whether the third country national represents a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to public order or public security or to take into account the duration of residence in the territory of that Member State, the age of the person concerned, the consequences of expulsion for the person concerned and family members and the links with the country of residence or the absence of links with the country of origin.


(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Case C-43/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Vodafone Portugal — Comunicações Pessoais SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2(1)(c) — Scope — Taxable transactions — Services supplied for consideration — Monies paid where customers fail to comply with the contractual tie-in period — Characterisation)
Date: 2020-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services, supply, telecommunications








C_2020271EN.01001002.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/10






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — Vodafone Portugal — Comunicações Pessoais SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-43/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2(1)(c) - Scope - Taxable transactions - Services supplied for consideration - Monies paid where customers fail to comply with the contractual tie-in period - Characterisation)
(2020/C 271/14)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vodafone Portugal — Comunicações Pessoais SA

Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that amounts received by an economic operator in the event of early termination, for reasons specific to the customer, of a services contract requiring compliance with a tie-in period in exchange for granting that customer advantageous commercial conditions, must be considered to constitute the remuneration for a supply of services for consideration, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.