do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-803/19: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — etc-gaming and Casino-Equipment v Commission (Action for damages — Failure by the European Union to introduce an effective remedy offering suitable redress for a failure on the part of the national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, game of chance, loss, preliminary ruling procedure, primacy of EU law, right to justice, tax law, turnover








C_2020262EN.01002601.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/26






Order of the General Court of 16 June 2020 — etc-gaming and Casino-Equipment v Commission
(Case T-803/19) (1)

(Action for damages - Failure by the European Union to introduce an effective remedy offering suitable redress for a failure on the part of the national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2020/C 262/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: etc-gaming GmbH (Vienna, Austria) and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH (Vienna) (represented by A. Schuster, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by L. Armati, G. Braun and L. Malferrari, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of the failure by the European Union to introduce an effective remedy offering suitable redress for a failure on the part of the national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice.

Operative part







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


etc-gaming GmbH and Casino-Equipment Vermietungs GmbH are ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-383/20: Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Moloko Beverage v EUIPO — Nexus Liquids (moloko)
Date: 2020-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tobacco, tobacco industry, trade-mark law








C_2020262EN.01003501.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/35






Action brought on 16 June 2020 — Moloko Beverage v EUIPO — Nexus Liquids (moloko)
(Case T-383/20)
(2020/C 262/47)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Moloko Beverage GmbH (Göppingen, Germany) (represented by: D. Wieland, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nexus Liquids GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘moloko’ — European Union trade mark No 16 415 838

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2020 in Case R 1485/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and register European Union trade mark No 16 415 838 also for the goods:
tobacco and tobacco products, including tobacco substitutes; flavourings and solutions for vaporisers for personal use and electronic cigarettes










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Nexus Liquids GmbH to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-384/20: Action brought on 16 June 2020 — OC (*) v Commission
Date: 2020-06-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, data protection, dissemination of information, indemnification, personal data, press release, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence




C_2020279EN.01004401.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/44






Action brought on 16 June 2020 —  OC (*1) v Commission
(Case T-384/20)
(2020/C 279/58)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: OC (*1) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


order the European Commission to pay the applicant an amount totalling EUR 1 100 000 to compensate for the non-material harm that she has suffered up until today, and










—


order the European Commission to pay all the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


By the present action, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 268 and the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU, compensation for the harm that she has suffered on account of unlawful acts and omissions of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), following the publication by the latter of Press Release No 13/2020 by which personal data and false information that related to the applicant unlawfully leaked out.










2.


According to the applicant, in (a) publishing (by the press release directed at the public at large) personal data of the applicant and (b) disseminating inaccurate and false information in the press release, OLAF seriously infringed rules that confer rights on individuals.










3.


In particular, by those acts, it infringed Articles 4(1)(a) and (b), 5, 6 and 15(3) of Regulation 2018/1725, (1) Articles 10(5) and 9(1) of Regulation No 883/2013, (2) and the presumption of innocence, the right to good administration and the principle of proportionality.






(*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

(1)  Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ 2018 L 295, p. 39).

(2)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ 2013 L 248, p. 1).
Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU End of the suspension of the period for adoption of implementing acts 2020/C 202/04
Date: 2020-06-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: Lithuania, award of contract, electrical energy, energy production, wholesale trade








C_2020202EN.01002701.xml










16.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 202/27






Notice of request concerning the applicability of Article 34 of Directive 2014/25/EU
End of the suspension of the period for adoption of implementing acts
(2020/C 202/04)
On 8 April 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 Lietuvos energija UAB, concerns production and wholesale of electricity in Lithuania. The relevant notices were published on page 28 of OJ C 316 on 20 September 2019 and on page 9 of OJ C 53 on 17 February 2020.
On 14 May 2019 the Commission asked the national authorities to provide additional information by 28 May 2019 at the latest. As announced in the notice that was published on page 9 of OJ C 53 of 17 February 2020, the final deadline was prolonged by 74 working days after the receipt of the complete and correct information. The information was received on 19 March 2020.
The final deadline therefore expires on 10 July 2020.


(1)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement 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).
Case C-268/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 16 June 2020 — XV v Cajamar Caja Rural S.C.C.
Date: 2020-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2020320EN.01000802.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 16 June 2020 — XV v Cajamar Caja Rural S.C.C.
(Case C-268/20)
(2020/C 320/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant: XV

Defendant and other party: Cajamar Caja Rural S.C.C.

Questions referred







1.


In terms of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, is the following ruling compliant with EU law in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant Community case-law: the ruling by the Supreme Court in judgments 44 to 49 of 23 January 2019, which establishes the unambiguous criterion that a term in a consumer mortgage loan agreement that has not been negotiated and that stipulates that all the costs of arranging the mortgage are to be borne by the borrower is unfair, and which apportions the various expenses that are involved in the unfair term found to be void between the bank that imposed the term and the borrower, in order to limit repayments of amounts wrongly paid under national legislation?
And, in terms of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant Community case-law, is it compliant with EU law for the Supreme Court to adopt an inclusive interpretation of a term that is void for unfairness if the term can be severed and its effects abolished without affecting the continued existence of the mortgage loan agreement?










2.


Also, as regards Article 394 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure), which establishes the principle that the costs of proceedings are to be borne by the unsuccessful party, can it be held that where an unfair expenses clause is declared void but the effects of voiding the term are limited to apportioning the expenses in question, it is contrary to the EU legal principles of effectiveness and the non-binding nature of unfair terms to conclude that a claim has been upheld in part, and could such a conclusion be interpreted as producing an inverse deterrent effect, which thus fails to protect the legitimate interests of consumers and users?






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.