do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/890 of 23 June 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Mele del Trentino’ (IGP)]
Date: 2020-06-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy, designation of origin, labelling, pip fruit, product designation








L_2020206EN.01000101.xml










30.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 206/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/890
of 23 June 2020
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [‘Mele del Trentino’ (IGP)]


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Mele del Trentino’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Mele del Trentino’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Mele del Trentino’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 23 June 2020.


For the Commission


On behalf of the President

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 72, 5.3.2020, p. 14.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Case C-275/20: Action brought on 23 June 2020 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
Date: 2020-06-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: South Korea, audiovisual co-production, cultural cooperation, free-trade agreement, institutional balance (EU), legal basis, protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement, trade agreement (EU)








C_2020279EN.01003901.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/39






Action brought on 23 June 2020 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
(Case C-275/20)
(2020/C 279/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. Afonso, D. Schaffrin, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

The applicant claims that the Court should:







—


annul Council Decision (EU) 2020/470 (1) of 25 March 2020 as regards the extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part;










—


order Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action for annulment brought by the Commission concerns the renewal for 3 years of an entitlement of audiovisual co-productions of producers from the EU Party and Korea to benefit from the respective schemes for the promotion of local/regional cultural content under Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, and the Republic of Korea.
The Commission relies, in support of its action, on one single ground.
The Commission considers that by basing its decision on Article 3(1) of Council Decision (EU) 2015/2169 (2) of 1 October 2015 on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, and not on Article 218(6) TFEU as proposed by the Commission, the Council relied on a secondary legal basis, not provided for in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Therefore, the Council violated the principle of conferral of powers in Article 13(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the principle of institutional balance as developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice.


(1)  Council Decision (EU) 2020/470 of 25 March 2020 as regards the extension of the period of entitlement for audiovisual co-productions as provided for in Article 5 of the Protocol on Cultural Cooperation to the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, OJ 2020, L 101, p. 1.

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/2169 of 1 October 2015 on the conclusion of the Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Korea, of the other part, OJ 2015, L 307, p. 2.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9756 — Nouryon/CP Kelco) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 335/03
Date: 2020-06-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cellulose, economic concentration, merger control, special chemicals








C_2020335EN.01000401.xml










9.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 335/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9756 — Nouryon/CP Kelco)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 335/03)
On 23 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 32020M9756. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-389/20: Action brought on 23 June 2020 — KO v Commission
Date: 2020-06-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020279EN.01004501.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/45






Action brought on 23 June 2020 — KO v Commission
(Case T-389/20)
(2020/C 279/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KO (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 18 October 2019 by which PMO decided not to grant the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance, along with, if necessary, the decision of 20 March 2020 by which the defendant rejected the complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations lodged by the applicant; and










—


order that the defendant pays all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 69 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 4(1) and (2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration and duty of care.
Case T-387/20: Action brought on 23 June 2020 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)
Date: 2020-06-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020262EN.01003502.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/35






Action brought on 23 June 2020 — DK Company v EUIPO — Hunter Boot (DENIM HUNTER)
(Case T-387/20)
(2020/C 262/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: S. Hansen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hunter Boot Ltd (Edinburgh, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark DENIM HUNTER — Application for registration No 14 649 891

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 April 2020 in Case R 849/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


reverse the contested decision in its entirety;










—


order EUIPO to bear the costs including cost incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal has erred in the assessment of the consequence of the (administrative) limitation of the goods in the applicant’s trademark application, and the impact of the figurative element in the applicant’s mark;










—


The Board of Appeal completely ignored the fact that the General Court had already assessed the distinctiveness of the word ‘HUNTER’ for goods in class 25.
Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2020/888 of 23 June 2020 extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2020)
Date: 2020-06-23
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: EU police mission, Mali, Sahel, peacekeeping








L_2020205EN.01001801.xml










29.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 205/18








            POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION (CFSP) 2020/888
of 23 June 2020
         
extending the mandate of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali
(EUCAP Sahel Mali) (EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2020)


THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular the third paragraph of Article 38 thereof,


Having regard to Council Decision 2014/219/CFSP of 15 April 2014 on the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (1), and in particular Article 7(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 7(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2014/219, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising the political control and strategic direction of EUCAP Sahel Mali, including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.












(2)


On 18 September 2017, the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2017/1780 (2), appointing Mr Philippe RIO as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali from 1 October 2017 to 14 January 2018. This mandate was thereafter extended until 30 September 2020 by subsequent PSC decisions.












(3)


On 21 February 2019, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2019/312 (3), extending the mandate of EUCAP Sahel Mali until 14 January 2021.












(4)


The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy has proposed to extend the mandate of Mr Philippe RIO as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali from 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The mandate of Mr Philippe RIO as Head of Mission of EUCAP Sahel Mali is hereby extended to 31 December 2020.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 23 June 2020.


For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMESBERGER
            





(1)  
            OJ L 113, 16.4.2014, p. 21.

(2)  Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2017/1780 of 18 September 2017 on the appointment of the Head of Mission of the European Union CSDP mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (EUCAP Sahel Mali/1/2017) (OJ L 253, 30.9.2017, p. 37).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/312 of 21 February 2019 amending and extending Decision 2014/219/CFSP on the European Union CSDP Mission in Mali (EUCAP Sahel Mali) (OJ L 51, 22.2.2019, p. 29).