do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Corrigendum to Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (Official Journal of the European Union L 176 of 27 June 2013)
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: auditing, credit institution, investment company, management audit, right of establishment




L_2020203EN.01009501.xml










26.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 203/95







Corrigendum to Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 176 of 27 June 2013
)


On page 415, point (d)(iv) of Article 141(8):
for:






‘(iv)


the payment of variable remuneration or discretionary pension benefits, whether by creation of a new obligation to pay, or payment pursuant to an obligation to pay created at a time when the institution failed to meet its combined buffer requirements.’,




read:






‘(iv)


the payment of variable remuneration or discretionary pension benefits, whether by creation of a new obligation to pay, or payment pursuant to an obligation to pay created at a time when the institution failed to meet its combined buffer requirement.’.




On page 416, Article 142(3):
for:


‘3.   The competent authority shall assess the capital conservation plan, and shall approve the plan only if it considers that the plan, if implemented, would be reasonably likely to conserve or raise sufficient capital to enable the institution to meet its combined buffer requirements within a period which the competent authority considers appropriate.’,


read:


‘3.   The competent authority shall assess the capital conservation plan, and shall approve the plan only if it considers that the plan, if implemented, would be reasonably likely to conserve or raise sufficient capital to enable the institution to meet its combined buffer requirement within a period which the competent authority considers appropriate.’.
Case T-399/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe (Ø)
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020271EN.01004801.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/48






Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Cole Haan v EUIPO — Samsøe & Samsøe (Ø)
(Case T-399/20)
(2020/C 271/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Cole Haan LLC (Greenland, New Hampshire, United States) (represented by: G. Vos, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Samsøe & Samsøe Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

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 Ø — Application for registration No 17 429 044

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 April 2020 in Case R 1375/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of this application;










—


order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Failure to correctly determine the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity;










—


Failure to correctly make an overall assessment of the likelihood of confusion.
Case C-279/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Federal Republic of Germany v XC
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age of majority, dependant, family reunification, foreign national, infancy, refugee, right of asylum








C_2020378EN.01001601.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Federal Republic of Germany v XC
(Case C-279/20)
(2020/C 378/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Federal Republic of Germany

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: XC

Intervening party: Landkreis Cloppenburg

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 4(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification to be interpreted as meaning that the child of a sponsor granted refugee status is a minor within the meaning of that provision even if the child was a minor at the time at which the asylum application was made by the sponsor but came of age before he was granted refugee status and before an application for family reunification was made?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
What requirements are to be imposed in terms of a real family relationship within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Directive 2003/86/EC in such a case?






(a)


Does the legal parent/child relationship suffice or is a real family life necessary?










(b)


If a real family life is necessary: How close must it be? For example, do occasional or regular visits suffice, must the family cohabit in a single household or must they also be part of a support unit whose members are reliant upon one another?










(c)


For the purpose of his or her subsequent immigration, must a child still in a third country who has submitted an application for family reunification to join a parent with refugee status and who has since come of age be expected following entry to (re-)establish a family life in the Member State in the manner described in Question 2(b)?










(1)  Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 25 June 2020 2020/C 212/02
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020212EN.01000701.xml










26.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 212/7






Euro exchange rates (1)

25 June 2020
(2020/C 212/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1200 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,25 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4534 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90133 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4865 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0637 




ISK


Iceland króna


155,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,8748 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,796 




HUF


Hungarian forint


354,35 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4653 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8420 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,6776 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6321 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5282 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6805 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7465 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5600 




KRW


South Korean won


1 347,73 




ZAR


South African rand


19,4883 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9206 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5670 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 988,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7914 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,075 




RUB


Russian rouble


77,7516 




THB


Thai baht


34,647 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0012 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,6315 




INR


Indian rupee


84,7120 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-281/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Ferimet S.L. v Administración General del Estado
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, economic activity, goods and services, invoicing, tax offence, tax relief, taxpayer








C_2020320EN.01000901.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/9






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Ferimet S.L. v Administración General del Estado
(Case C-281/20)
(2020/C 320/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ferimet S.L.

Defendant: Administración General del Estado

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 168 and related provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) the principle of tax neutrality arising from that directive, and the associated case-law of the Court of Justice be interpreted as not allowing a trader to deduct input VAT where, under the reverse charging of VAT, known in EU law as the reverse charge procedure, the documentary evidence (invoice) issued by that trader for the goods he or she has purchased states a fictitious supplier, although it is not disputed that the trader in question did actually make the purchase and used the purchased materials in the course of his or her trade or business?










2.


In the event that a practice such as that described above — of which the interested party must have been aware — can be characterised as abusive or fraudulent for the purposes of refusing the deduction of input VAT, is it necessary, in order for the deduction to be refused, to prove in full the existence of a tax advantage that is incompatible with the guiding objectives of ‘VAT regulation?’










3.


Lastly, if such proof is required, must the tax advantage which would be grounds for refusing the deduction and which must be identified in the specific case in question relate exclusively to the taxpayer (who purchased the goods), or could that advantage be one which relates to other parties involved in the transaction?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-397/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita Company (JUVEDERM)
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aesthetic surgery, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020279EN.01005001.xml










24.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 279/50






Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita Company (JUVEDERM)
(Case T-397/20)
(2020/C 279/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

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:






—


annul points 3 and 4 of the operative part of the decision insofar as it dismissed the applicant appeal against the revocation of its EU trade mark registration No 2 196 822 JUVEDERM for ‘dermal implants’, and ordered the applicant to bear its own costs;










—


order EUIPO and Dermavita Company Ltd to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant, including those incurred by the applicant before the Fourth Board of Appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 64(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-396/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORTS)
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, education, maintenance, marketing, parking area, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2020271EN.01004602.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/46






Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORTS)
(Case T-396/20)
(2020/C 271/59)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, 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 figurative mark RIVIERA AIRPORTS in colour — European Union trade mark No 16 397 309

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2020 in Case R 2172/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


alter the contested decision to:






—


allow the applicant’s appeal,










—


grant in its entirety the applicant’s cancellation application No. 20 825 C to declare the trade mark at issue invalid,










—


order the European Union trade mark proprietor to pay the applicant’s costs before of the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division,










—


alternatively remit the case to the Cancellation Division to address Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;














—


order the payment of the applicant’s fees and costs.





Pleas in law







—


Failure to interpret the correct ruling of bad faith application;










—


Wrong and partial analysis and evaluation of the relevant indicia required in the overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;










—


Failure to consider all the other relevant indicia and the available evidence of the bad faith according to the required overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;










—


Wrong interpretation and enforcement of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 to the case at issue;










—


Failure of the Board of Appeal to carry out a correct analysis.
Case T-398/20: Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORT)
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, education, maintenance, marketing, parking area, publishing, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2020271EN.01004701.xml










17.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 271/47






Action brought on 26 June 2020 — Riviera-Airport v EUIPO — Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (RIVIERA AIRPORT)
(Case T-398/20)
(2020/C 271/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Aeroporto di Villanova d’Albenga SpA (Riviera-Airport) (Villanova d’Albenga, Italy) (represented by: G. Casucci, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aéroports de la Côte d’Azur (Nice, 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 figurative mark RIVIERA AIRPORT in colour — European Union trade mark No 16 392 731

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2020 in Case R 2174/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


alter the contested decision to:










—


allow the applicant’s appeal,






—


grant in its entirety the applicant’s cancellation application No. 20 824 C to declare the trade mark at issue invalid,










—


order the European Union trade mark proprietor to pay the applicant’s costs before of the Board of Appeal and the Cancellation Division,










—


alternatively remit the case to the Cancellation Division to address Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;














—


order the payment of the applicant’s fees and costs.





Pleas in law







—


Failure to interpret the correct ruling of bad faith application;










—


Wrong and partial analysis and evaluation of the relevant indicia required in the overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;










—


Failure to consider all the other relevant indicia and the available evidence of the bad faith according to the required overall and case-by-case assessment of the bad faith application;










—


Wrong interpretation and enforcement of Article 12(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625 to the case at issue;










—


Failure of the Board of Appeal to carry out a correct analysis.
Case C-282/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Criminal proceedings against ZX
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charge, public prosecution, right to information, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020287EN.01002901.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 26 June 2020 — Criminal proceedings against ZX
(Case C-282/20)
(2020/C 287/46)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Party to the main proceedings

ZX

Questions referred

Is a provision of national law, namely Article 248(3) of the Nakazatelno protsesualen kodeks (Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure), which does not provide for a procedural rule for the rectification, after completion of the first hearing in criminal proceedings (preliminary hearing), of substantive ambiguities and shortcomings in the bill of indictment which infringe the accused person’s right to be informed of the accusation, compatible with Article 6(3) of Directive 2012/13 (1) and with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
If the answer to that question is in the negative: Would an interpretation of the national provisions governing amendment of the bill of indictment that allows the public prosecution service to rectify those substantive ambiguities and shortcomings in the bill of indictment at the hearing, so as to take proper and effective account of the accused person’s right to be informed of the accusation, be in keeping with the aforesaid provisions and with Article 47 of the Charter, or would it be in keeping with those provisions to refrain from applying national legislation prohibiting the staying of court proceedings and referral of the case back to the public prosecution service with directions to draft a new bill of indictment?


(1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9759 – Nexi/Intesa Sanpaolo (Merchant Acquiring business)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 273/01
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic banking, electronic money, merger control, payment system, provision of services








C_2020273EN.01000101.xml










18.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 273/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9759 – Nexi/Intesa Sanpaolo (Merchant Acquiring business))
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 273/01)
On 26 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 32020M9759. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-210/19: Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság) — Hungary) — TN v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, formerly Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
Date: 2020-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Hungary, administrative procedure, limitation of legal proceedings, right of asylum, right to justice








C_2020329EN.01000903.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/9






Order of the President of the Court of 26 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (formerly Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság) — Hungary) — TN v Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság, formerly Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
(Case C-210/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/14)
Language of the case: Hungarian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.