do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-371/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, international convention








C_2020297EN.01003901.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/39






Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Pollinis France v Commission
(Case T-371/20)
(2020/C 297/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pollinis France (Paris, France) (represented by: C. Lepage, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting a confirmatory application for access to documents registered under reference number GESTDEM No 2020/0498 pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001; (1)











—


order the European Commission to pay EUR 3 000 to the applicant for the costs of the procedure, in application of the Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the European Commission failed to state reasons in its application of the protection of the decision-making process exception.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since there is an overriding public interest to disclose the documents requested and that the documents requested should benefit from the wider access granted to ‘legislative documents’.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging the contested decision violates Article 6(1) of the Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, (2) since the exception stated in Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 should be interpreted and applied all the more strictly when information requested relates to emissions into the environment.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).
Case C-263/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 15 June 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Laudamotion GmbH
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, reservation, traveller








C_2020279EN.01003702.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/37






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 15 June 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Laudamotion GmbH
(Case C-263/20)
(2020/C 279/50)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendant: Laudamotion GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Are Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the passenger has a right to compensation where the original time of departure of 14.40 is brought forward to 8.25 on the same day?










2.


Is Article 5(1)(c)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 to be interpreted as meaning that examination as to whether the passenger is informed of the cancellation is to be conducted solely in accordance with that provision and precludes the application of national law on the receipt of declarations which was enacted in transposition of Directive 2000/31/EC (2) and includes a provision whereby declarations are deemed to be received?










3.


Are Article 5(1)(c)(i) to (iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 and Article 11 of Directive 2000/31 to be interpreted as meaning that, where a passenger reserved a flight via a booking platform and provided his telephone number and email address, but the booking platform forwarded to the air carrier the telephone number and an email address that was generated automatically by the booking platform, delivery to the automatically generated email address of the notification that the flight has been brought forward is to be regarded as information or delivery of notification that the flight has been brought forward, even where the booking platform does not forward, or delays forwarding, the air carrier’s notification to the passenger?






(1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

(2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).
Case T-376/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Poupart v Commission
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, pension scheme, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020262EN.01003401.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/34






Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Poupart v Commission
(Case T-376/20)
(2020/C 262/46)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nicole Poupart (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 1 October 2019 to apply the rules of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 May 2004 to the calculation of her old-age pension;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging infringement of Articles 21 and 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union.
Information from the Commission concerning the non-application of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698 by Belgium 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 200 I/02
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, commercial vehicle, epidemic, infectious disease, motor vehicle, road safety, roadworthiness tests, technical regulations








CI2020200EN.01000201.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 200/2






Information from the Commission concerning the non-application of certain provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698 by Belgium
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 200 I/02)

Notification by: Belgium

In conformity with the relevant provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698, Belgium informed the Commission on 11 June 2020 that it has decided not to apply certain provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2020/698.

Provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/698 that Belgium 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).
Case C-261/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2020 — Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: direct applicability, engineer, minimum pay, remuneration of work, right of establishment, town-planning profession








C_2020313EN.01001001.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 June 2020 — Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH v MN
(Case C-261/20)
(2020/C 313/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Thelen Technopark Berlin GmbH

Respondent: MN

Questions referred







1.


Does it follow from EU law, in particular from Article 4(3) TEU, the third paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Article 260(1) TFEU, that, in the context of ongoing court proceedings between private persons, Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123 on services in the internal market (1) has direct effect in such a way that the national provisions contrary to that directive that are contained in Paragraph 7 of the German Verordnung über die Honorare für Architekten- und Ingenieurleistungen (Decree on fees for services provided by architects and engineers (‘the HOAI’)), pursuant to which the minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers laid down in that official scale of fees are mandatory — save in certain exceptional cases — and any fee agreement in contracts with architects or engineers which falls short of the minimum rates is invalid, are no longer to be applied?










2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative:






(a)


Does the Federal Republic of Germany’s scheme of mandatory minimum rates for planning and supervision services provided by architects and engineers in Paragraph 7 of the HOAI constitute an infringement of the freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU or of other general principles of EU law?










(b)


If Question 2(a) is to be answered in the affirmative: Does it follow from such an infringement that the national rules on mandatory minimum rates (in this case: Paragraph 7 of the HOAI) are no longer to be applied in ongoing court proceedings between private persons?










(1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.
Case C-267/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de León (Spain) lodged on 15 June 2020 — AB Volvo and DAF TRUCKS N.V. v RM
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil liability proceedings, competition law, damages, limitation of legal proceedings, national law, retroactivity of a law








C_2020320EN.01000801.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de León (Spain) lodged on 15 June 2020 — AB Volvo and DAF TRUCKS N.V. v RM
(Case C-267/20)
(2020/C 320/10)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de León

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: AB Volvo and DAF TRUCKS N.V.

Respondent: RM

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 101 TFEU and the principle of effectiveness be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of national legislation according to which neither the 5-year limitation period established in Article 10 of Directive 2014/104/EU nor Article 17 thereof, concerning judicial estimation of harm, is retroactively applicable, and which establishes retroactive effect by reference to the date of the penalty rather than the date on which the action is brought?










2.


Must Article 22(2) of Directive 2014/104 (1) and the term ‘retroactively’ be interpreted as meaning that Article 10 of the directive is applicable to a claim such as that brought in the main proceedings, which, although lodged after the directive and the transposing legislation entered into force, refers to prior facts or penalties?










3.


When applying a provision such as that of Article 76 of the Ley de Defensa de la Competencia (Law on the Protection of Competition), must Article 17 of Directive 2014/104, concerning judicial estimation of harm, be interpreted as a procedural provision that will apply to main proceedings in which an action is brought after the entry into force of the national transposing legislation?






(1)  Directive 2014/104/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 November 2014 on certain rules governing actions for damages under national law for infringements of the competition law provisions of the Member States and of the European Union (OJ 2014 L 349, p. 1).
Case T-373/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building)
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building, designs and models








C_2020271EN.01004301.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/43






Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Framery v EUIPO — Smartblock (Transportable building)
(Case T-373/20)
(2020/C 271/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Framery Oy (Tampere, Finland) (represented by: P. Voutilainen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smartblock Oy (Helsinki, Finland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: European Union design 3 303 994-00001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2020 in Case R 616/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and reject the application for declaration of invalidity in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of that regulation, on the ground that the contested design has individual character and the Board of Appeal erred in the assessment of the individual character of the contested design;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal erroneously accepted a disclosure of an earlier design;










—


Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal failed to state their reasons concerning the acceptance of the disclosure of the earlier design;










—


Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on the ground that the Board of Appeal has based their decision to facts, evidence and argumentation especially concerning alleged features and disclosure of the earlier design, that were not provided by either of the parties.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 12 June 2020 2020/C 200/05
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020200EN.01000901.xml










15.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 200/9






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 June 2020
(2020/C 200/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1304 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,26 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4551 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89653 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5103 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0697 




ISK


Iceland króna


152,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,8475 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,698 




HUF


Hungarian forint


346,00 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4484 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8343 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,7224 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6447 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5347 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7607 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7553 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5718 




KRW


South Korean won


1 360,45 




ZAR


South African rand


19,2794 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9990 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5660 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 058,24 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8240 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,763 




RUB


Russian rouble


78,7662 




THB


Thai baht


34,986 




BRL


Brazilian real


5,7388 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,4450 




INR


Indian rupee


85,7875 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-262/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 June 2020 — VB v Glavna Direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zaschtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: arrangement of working time, equal treatment, fire protection, night work, police, public service employee, reduction of working time








C_2020279EN.01003701.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/37






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Lukovit (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 June 2020 — VB v Glavna Direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zaschtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti
(Case C-262/20)
(2020/C 279/49)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Rayonen sad Lukovit

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VB

Defendant: Glavna Direktsia ‘Pozharna bezopasnost i zaschtita na naselenieto’ kam Ministerstvo na vatreshnite raboti

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of effective protection under Article 12(a) of Directive 2003/88/EC, (1) should the normal duration of periods of night duty of police officers and firefighters be shorter than the normal duration of periods of day duty?










2.


For the purposes of the principle of equality set out in Articles 20 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must the normal duration of periods of night work laid down in national law for workers in the private sector (7 hours) also apply to public-sector workers, including police officers and firefighters?










3.


Can the objective of limiting the duration of periods of night work mentioned in the eighth recital of Directive 2003/88/EC be effectively attained only if the normal duration of periods of night work, including for public-sector workers, is expressly laid down in national law?






(1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 05 Volume 007 P. 3).
Case T-372/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM)
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020262EN.01003302.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/33






Action brought on 15 June 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVEDERM)
(Case T-372/20)
(2020/C 262/45)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

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 word mark JUVEDERM — European Union trade mark No 2 196 822

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 in Case R 877/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the contested decision concerning the rejection of the application for revocation of EUTM No 2 196 822 JUVEDERM for the contested goods ‘biocompatible substances for medical purposes for reducing wrinkles’;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant at every stage of the action for revocation and appeal proceedings, including the cost of the proceedings before EUIPO and the Court.





Pleas in law







—


Erroneous interpretation of the relevant law, concerning the assessment of the nature of the goods, the trade mark has been used for;










—


Lack of proof concerning the use of the trade mark by third parties with the consent of the EUTM proprietor under the meaning of Article 18(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-374/20: Action brought on 15 June 2020 — KM v Commission
Date: 2020-06-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, civil union, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, marriage, retirement conditions, staff regulations (EU), survivor's benefit, widowed person








C_2020255EN.01003401.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/34






Action brought on 15 June 2020 — KM v Commission
(Case T-374/20)
(2020/C 255/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: KM (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 7 October 2019 in the form of the decision of the ‘Autorité Investie du Pouvoir de Nomination (AIPN)’ No R/627/19 of 20 March 2020, whereby the defendant refuses to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension, and order the defendant, having regard to the interpretation of the law given by the General Court, to decide anew and to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the 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
In the first plea in law, the applicant alleges that it is discriminatory to require couples of the opposite sex to marry, but in respect of all other couples to allow any form of durable, registered partnership to be sufficient, in order to qualify for a pension.










2.


Second plea in law
In the second plea in law, the applicant argues that Article 18 in conjunction with Article 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union are discriminatory and, therefore, null and void because in respect of an active official one year of marriage is sufficient to be regarded as a stable relationship which on the death of the official entitles his or her spouse to a survivor’s pension, whereas in respect of spouses of officials who marry those officials only after their retirement, five years of marriage must be demonstrated to benefit from a survivor’s pension.