do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2020/C 226/07
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, epidemic, infectious disease, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2020226EN.01001101.xml










9.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 226/11






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2020/C 226/07)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


2 April 2020




Case No


85041




Decision No


031/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Region


Whole territory of Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Amendment to COVID-19 Guarantee scheme for SMEs (inclusion of large undertakings)




Legal basis


Regulation on amendments to Regulation 27 March 2020 No 490 to the Act on a Government guarantee scheme for SMEs




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Ensure access to liquidity for large undertakings facing a sudden shortage of liquidity due to the COVID-19 outbreak




Form of aid


Public guarantees




Budget


NOK 50 billion (for the scheme as amended)




Duration


26 March 2020 – 1 June 2020




Economic sectors


All sectors




Name and address of the granting authority


GIEK, The Norwegian Export Credit Guarantee Agency
Pb 1763 Vika
N-0122 Oslo
NORWAY




The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case C-673/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Santen SAS v Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal product for human use — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3(d) — Conditions for the grant of a certificate — Obtaining the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product — Authorisation to place on the market a new therapeutic application of a known active ingredient)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, therapeutics








C_2020287EN.01000302.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris — France) — Santen SAS v Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle
(Case C-673/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal product for human use - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(d) - Conditions for the grant of a certificate - Obtaining the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product - Authorisation to place on the market a new therapeutic application of a known active ingredient)
(2020/C 287/04)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Santen SAS

Defendant: Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that a marketing authorisation cannot be considered to be the first marketing authorisation, for the purpose of that provision, where it covers a new therapeutic application of an active ingredient, or of a combination of active ingredients, and that active ingredient or combination has already been the subject of a marketing authorisation for a different therapeutic application.


(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case C-81/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — NG, OH v SC Banca Transilvania SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Scope — Article 1(2) — Definition of ‘mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions’ — Supplementary provisions — Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency — Term relating to the foreign exchange risk)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, exchange rate, financial risk, foreign currency, unfair terms of contract








C_2020287EN.01000701.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/7






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — NG, OH v SC Banca Transilvania SA
(Case C-81/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Scope - Article 1(2) - Definition of ‘mandatory statutory or regulatory provisions’ - Supplementary provisions - Loan agreement denominated in a foreign currency - Term relating to the foreign exchange risk)
(2020/C 287/09)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: NG, OH

Defendant: SC Banca Transilvania SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term which has not been individually negotiated but which reflects a rule that, under national law, applies between contracting parties provided that no other arrangements have been established in that respect falls outside the scope of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Case C-257/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector — Directive 2009/18/EC — Article 8(1) — Parties whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to the investigative body — Members of the investigative body simultaneously performing other functions — Failure to provide for an independent investigative body)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: fact-finding mission, infringement of EU law, maritime safety, maritime transport, transport accident








C_2020287EN.01001002.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/10






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — European Commission v Ireland
(Case C-257/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector - Directive 2009/18/EC - Article 8(1) - Parties whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to the investigative body - Members of the investigative body simultaneously performing other functions - Failure to provide for an independent investigative body)
(2020/C 287/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S.L. Kalėda and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: M. Browne, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and by N.J. Travers, Senior Counsel, and B. Doherty, Barrister-at-Law)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to provide for an investigative body which is independent in its organisation and decision-making of any party whose interests could conflict with the task entrusted to that investigative body, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of accidents in the maritime transport sector and amending Council Directive 1999/35/EC and Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;










2.


Orders Ireland to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case C-309/20 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-443/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01001903.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/19






Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-443/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
(Case C-309/20 P)
(2021/C 35/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg
By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case C-391/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Unipack’ АD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — The Union Customs Code — Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 — Article 172(2) — Authorisation for the use of the end-use procedure — Retroactive effect — Concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ — Change of tariff classification — Binding tariff information decision no longer valid)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, EU customs procedure, anti-dumping duty, customs regulations, customs union, import (EU), originating product, retroactivity of a law








C_2020287EN.01001401.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/14






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — ‘Unipack’ АD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria
(Case C-391/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - The Union Customs Code - Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 - Article 172(2) - Authorisation for the use of the end-use procedure - Retroactive effect - Concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ - Change of tariff classification - Binding tariff information decision no longer valid)
(2020/C 287/20)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Unipack’ АD

Defendants: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsiya ‘Dunavska’ kam Agentsiya ‘Mitnitsi’, Prokuror ot Varhovna administrativna prokuratura na Republika Bulgaria

Operative part of the judgment

Article 172(2) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2446 of 28 July 2015 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards detailed rules concerning certain provisions of the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the grant, under Article 254 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code, of authorisation with retroactive effect for the use of the end-use customs procedure, as provided for in that provision, factors such as the premature end of the validity of a binding tariff information decision as a result of an amendment to the Combined Nomenclature, that there was no action by the customs authorities concerning imports bearing an incorrect code or the fact that the goods were used for a purpose exempted from the anti-dumping duty cannot be classified as ‘exceptional circumstances’, within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Case C-716/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — CT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Caraş-Severin — Serviciul Inspecţie Persoane Fizice, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1 (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Point 4 of the first paragraph of Article 288 — Special scheme for small enterprises — Method of calculating annual turnover which serves as a reference for the application of the special scheme for small enterprises — Concept of ‘ancillary real estate transaction’ — Letting of immovable property by a natural person who exercises several liberal professions)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, liberal profession, natural person, property leasing, small business, taxpayer, turnover








C_2020287EN.01000501.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/5






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timişoara — Romania) — CT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Caraş-Severin — Serviciul Inspecţie Persoane Fizice, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1
(Case C-716/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Point 4 of the first paragraph of Article 288 - Special scheme for small enterprises - Method of calculating annual turnover which serves as a reference for the application of the special scheme for small enterprises - Concept of ‘ancillary real estate transaction’ - Letting of immovable property by a natural person who exercises several liberal professions)
(2020/C 287/06)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timişoara

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CT

Defendant: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Caraş-Severin — Serviciul Inspecţie Persoane Fizice, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Timişoara — Serviciul Soluţionare Contestaţii 1

Operative part of the judgment

Point 4 of the first paragraph of Article 288 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to a taxable person who is a natural person and whose economic activity consists of the exercise of several liberal professions and the letting of immovable property, such a letting does not constitute an ‘ancillary transaction’ under that provision where that transaction is carried out in the context of a usual business activity of the taxable person.


(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Case C-199/19: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — RL sp. z o.o. v J.M. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Concept of ‘commercial transaction’ — Provision of services — Article 2(1) — Lease or rental agreement — Periodical payments — Payment schedule providing for instalments — Article 5 — Scope)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: business lease, commercial transaction, deadline for payment, interest, redemption, rental business








C_2020287EN.01000901.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/9






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — RL sp. z o.o. v J.M.
(Case C-199/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Concept of ‘commercial transaction’ - Provision of services - Article 2(1) - Lease or rental agreement - Periodical payments - Payment schedule providing for instalments - Article 5 - Scope)
(2020/C 287/12)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RL sp. z o.o.

Defendant: J.M.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning that a contract under which the main obligation is the provision, for payment, of a property for temporary use, such as lease or rental agreement for business premises, is a commercial transaction leading to a provision of services, within the meaning of that provision, provided that that transaction is between undertakings or between undertakings and public authorities;










2.


Since a fixed-term or indefinite contract providing for periodic payments at pre-determined intervals, such as the monthly rent relating to a lease or rental agreement for business premises, falls within the material scope of Directive 2011/7 as a commercial transaction leading to the provision of services for remuneration, within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive, Article 5 of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that in order for such a contract to give rise, in the event of payment which is not regulated by a payment schedule, to the rights to interest and compensation provided for in Article 3 and Article 6 of that directive, it must not necessarily be considered to be an agreement on a payment schedule providing for instalments, within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive.






(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case C-272/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — VQ v Land Hessen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ — Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data — Regulation (EU) 2016/679 — Scope — Article 2(2)(a) — Meaning of ‘activity which falls outside the scope of Union law’ — Article 4(7) — Concept of ‘controller’ — Petitions Committee of the parliament of a Federated State of a Member State — Article 15 — Right of access by the data subject)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to information, data protection, natural person, parliamentary committee, personal data, petition








C_2020287EN.01001102.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/11






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden — Germany) — VQ v Land Hessen
(Case C-272/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Concept of ‘court or tribunal’ - Protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data - Regulation (EU) 2016/679 - Scope - Article 2(2)(a) - Meaning of ‘activity which falls outside the scope of Union law’ - Article 4(7) - Concept of ‘controller’ - Petitions Committee of the parliament of a Federated State of a Member State - Article 15 - Right of access by the data subject)
(2020/C 287/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VQ

Defendant: Land Hessen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(7) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that, in so far as a Petitions Committee of the parliament of a Federated State of a Member State determines, alone or with others, the purposes and means of the processing of personal data, that committee must be categorised as a ‘controller’, within the meaning of that provision, and consequently the processing of personal data carried out by that committee falls within the scope of that regulation and, in particular, of Article 15 thereof.


(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Case C-70/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — European Commission v HM (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 — Refusal to allow participation in the assessment tests — Request for review — Email of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) — EPSO’s failure to send the request for review to the selection board of the competition — Ground for refusal — Out of time — Classification of EPSO’s email — Decision to reject the request for review — Powers — No legal basis — Setting aside)
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EPSO, assistant, competition (EU), job vacancy, secretarial staff








C_2020287EN.01000601.xml










31.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 287/6






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2020 — European Commission v HM
(Case C-70/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition EPSO/AST-SC/03/15 - Refusal to allow participation in the assessment tests - Request for review - Email of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) - EPSO’s failure to send the request for review to the selection board of the competition - Ground for refusal - Out of time - Classification of EPSO’s email - Decision to reject the request for review - Powers - No legal basis - Setting aside)
(2020/C 287/07)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: T. S. Bohr and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: HM (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 November 2018, HM v Commission (T-587/16, EU:T:2018:818);










2.


Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.
Case C-93/20: Order of the President of the Court of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Schwechat — Austria) — JU v Air France Direktion für Österreich
Date: 2020-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, damage, fraud, limitation of legal proceedings, personal effects








C_2020329EN.01001204.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/12






Order of the President of the Court of 9 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Schwechat — Austria) — JU v Air France Direktion für Österreich
(Case C-93/20) (1)

(2020/C 329/26)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.