do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-380/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2013/11/EU — Alternative dispute resolution — Article 13(1) and (2) — Mandatory information — Accessibility of information)
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, alternative dispute resolution, consumer information, contract terms








C_2020279EN.01001201.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/12






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG
(Case C-380/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2013/11/EU - Alternative dispute resolution - Article 13(1) and (2) - Mandatory information - Accessibility of information)
(2020/C 279/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant: Deutsche Apotheker- und Ärztebank eG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13(1) and (2) of Directive 2013/11/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on consumer alternative dispute resolution and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Directive on ADR) are to be interpreted as meaning that a trader who provides in an accessible manner on his website the general terms and conditions of sales or service contracts, but concludes no contracts with consumers via that website, must provide in his general terms and conditions information about the ADR entity or ADR entities by which that trader is covered, when that trader commits to or is obliged to use that entity or those entities to resolve disputes with consumers. It is not sufficient in that respect that the trader either provides that information in other documents accessible on his website, or under other tabs thereof, or provides that information to the consumer in a separate document from the general terms and conditions, upon conclusion of the contract subject to those general terms and conditions.


(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Case T-133/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Off-White v EUIPO (OFF-WHITE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark OFF-WHITE — Partial rejection of the application for registration — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — Name of a colour — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, cosmetic product, furniture industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, packaged product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020287EN.01003201.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/32






Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Off-White v EUIPO (OFF-WHITE)
(Case T-133/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark OFF-WHITE - Partial rejection of the application for registration - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Name of a colour - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 287/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Off-White LLC (Springfield, Illinois, United States) (represented by: M. Decker, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Crawcour, J. Crespo Carrillo and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2018 (Case R-580/2018-2), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign OFF-WHITE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 December 2018 (Case R-580/2018-2), in so far as it refused registration as an EU trade mark of the figurative sign OFF-WHITE in respect of the goods in Classes 9 and 20 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and for ‘watches; wall clocks; horological and chronometric instruments; watch bands; watch cases; presentation boxes for watches; jewelry cases’ and ‘precious stones, semi-precious stones’ in Class 14;










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Off-White LLC, including the expenses necessarily incurred for the purpose of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO.






(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Case C-283/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 25 June 2020 — CO, ME, GC and 42 Others v MJ, European Commission, European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police mission, Kosovo, civilian personnel, employer








C_2020297EN.01003201.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/32






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 25 June 2020 — CO, ME, GC and 42 Others v MJ, European Commission, European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo
(Case C-283/20)
(2020/C 297/43)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: CO, ME, GC and 42 Others

Defendants: MJ, European Commission, European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, Eulex Kosovo

Question referred

Should Articles 8.3 and 10.3 of Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP of 4 February 2008 on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO, (1) before its amendment by Council Decision 2014/349/CFSP of 12 June 2014, (2) where necessary in combination with any other possibly relevant provisions, be read as conferring on the Head of Mission, personally and on his or her own behalf, the status of employer of the international civilian staff members employed in the service of the EULEX KOSOVO Mission during the period before 12 June 2014 or, having regard, in particular, to Articles 8.5 and 9.3 of Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP before its amendment on 12 June 2014, as conferring the status of employer on the European Union and/or an institution of the European Union such as the European Commission, the European External Action Service, the Council of the European Union or any other institution on behalf of which the Head of Mission acted until that date by virtue of a mandate, delegation of power or any other form of representation to be determined where necessary?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 42, p. 92.

(2)  Council Decision 2014/349/CFSP of 12 June 2014 amending Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo, EULEX KOSOVO (OJ 2014 L 174, p. 42).
Case C-164/18: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, supported by: French Republic
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, sanction (EU), service concession








C_2020320EN.01001501.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/15






Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain, supported by: French Republic
(Case C-164/18) (1)

(2020/C 320/18)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9841 – CDP Equity/Ansaldo Energia) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 218/01
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, investment company, machinery, merger control








C_2020218EN.01000101.xml










2.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 218/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9841 – CDP Equity/Ansaldo Energia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 218/01)
On 25 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 32020M9841. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9859 – Alcopa Coordination Center/Beran Central Europe/Alcomotive) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 219/02
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: distributor, economic concentration, harbour installation, holding company, investment company, logistics, merger control, motor vehicle, property market, renewable energy








C_2020219EN.01000201.xml










3.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 219/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9859 – Alcopa Coordination Center/Beran Central Europe/Alcomotive)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 219/02)
On 25 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 32020M9859. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-511/18: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — XH v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2017 promotion exercise — Decision not to promote — Clarity and precision of a plea in law in the application — Rule requiring correspondence — Challenge of definitive acts — Admissibility — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Interim probation report — End-of-probation report — Appraisal report — Factors taken into account for the consideration of the comparative merits — Regularity of the procedure — Liability — Non-material damage)
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, indemnification, pay scale, probationary period, promotion, staff assessment








C_2020271EN.01003302.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/33






Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — XH v Commission
(Case T-511/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2017 promotion exercise - Decision not to promote - Clarity and precision of a plea in law in the application - Rule requiring correspondence - Challenge of definitive acts - Admissibility - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Interim probation report - End-of-probation report - Appraisal report - Factors taken into account for the consideration of the comparative merits - Regularity of the procedure - Liability - Non-material damage)
(2020/C 271/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: XH (represented by: E. Auleytner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Radu Bouyon and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU, seeking (i) annulment of the decision, published in Administrative Notices No 25-2017 of 13 November 2017, not to include the applicant’s name in the list of officials promoted in the 2017 promotion exercise and annulment of Decision R/96/18 of 7 June 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 10 February 2018 and (ii) compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision not to promote XH to grade AD 6 in the 2017 promotion exercise, which is apparent from the publication, in Administrative Notices No 25-2017 of 13 November 2017, of the list of officials promoted to that grade;










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay to XH the sum of EUR 2 000 as compensation for the non-material damage that she has suffered;










3.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Case T-380/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan Solutions) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan Solutions — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer assisted design, marketing, miscellaneous industries, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020262EN.01002301.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/23






Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan Solutions)
(Case T-380/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan Solutions - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 262/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and P. Schmitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 March 2019 (Case R 1427/2018-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Serviceplan Solutions as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Case T-379/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer assisted design, marketing, miscellaneous industries, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020262EN.01002201.xml










10.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 262/22






Judgment of the General Court of 25 June 2020 — Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation v EUIPO (Serviceplan)
(Case T-379/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Serviceplan - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 262/29)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: B. Koch and P. Schmitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 March 2019 (Case R 1424/2018-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign Serviceplan as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Serviceplan Gruppe für innovative Kommunikation GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Case C-570/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — HF v European Parliament (Appeal — Civil service — European Parliament — Member of contract staff — Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Right to be heard — Rejection of a request for assistance — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Scope of judicial review)
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract staff, harassment at work, indemnification, judicial review, psychological harassment, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2020279EN.01000202.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/2






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — HF v European Parliament
(Case C-570/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - European Parliament - Member of contract staff - Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Right to be heard - Rejection of a request for assistance - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Scope of judicial review)
(2020/C 279/03)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: HF (represented by: A. Tymen, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and T. Lazian, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 June 2018, HF v Parliament (T-218/17, EU:T:2018:393);










2.


Annuls the decision of the Director-General for Personnel of the European Parliament, acting in his capacity as the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment for that institution, of 3 June 2016, rejecting the request for assistance, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, submitted by HF;










3.


Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;










4.


Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by HF in the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 455, 17.12.2018.
Case C-116/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — Gregor Schneider v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Internal reorganisation of the services of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) — Reassignment — Legal basis — Article 7 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union — Interests of the service — Substantial changes in tasks — Qualification — Transfer — Change — Misuse of power — Right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Right to a fair hearing — Right to effective judicial protection — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: abuse of power, professional qualifications, reassignment, right to justice, rights of the defence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), temporary employment








C_2020279EN.01000901.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/9






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 June 2020 — Gregor Schneider v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-116/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Internal reorganisation of the services of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) - Reassignment - Legal basis - Article 7 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union - Interests of the service - Substantial changes in tasks - Qualification - Transfer - Change - Misuse of power - Right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Right to a fair hearing - Right to effective judicial protection - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(2020/C 279/12)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Gregor Schneider (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Mr Gregor Schneider to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.
Intermediate update of the correction coefficients applicable from 1 January 2020 to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union (According to the Eurostat Report of 19 May 2020 on the intermediate update of remuneration and pensions of EU officials in accordance with the Articles 64, 65 and Annex XI of the Staff Regulations applicable to officials and other servants of the European Union. Further information is available on the Eurostat website (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat > ‘Data’ > ‘Database’ > ‘Economy and finance’ > ‘Prices’ > ‘Correction coefficients’)) 2020/C 211/07
Date: 2020-06-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, European Commission
Subjects: European official, Mazovia province, Poland, remuneration of work, servant (EU), wage determination








C_2020211EN.01000901.xml










25.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 211/9






Intermediate update of the correction coefficients applicable from 1 January 2020 to the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union (1)

(2020/C 211/07)







Place of employment


Correction coefficient for remuneration




PL


Warsaw


73,6






(1)  According to the Eurostat Report of 19 May 2020 on the intermediate update of remuneration and pensions of EU officials in accordance with the Articles 64, 65 and Annex XI of the Staff Regulations applicable to officials and other servants of the European Union.
Further information is available on the Eurostat website (http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat > ‘Data’ > ‘Database’ > ‘Economy and finance’ > ‘Prices’ > ‘Correction coefficients’)