do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-462/20: Action brought on 16 July 2020 — ZU v Commission
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, appointment of staff, damages, right to information, rights of the defence








C_2020329EN.01001602.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/16






Action brought on 16 July 2020 — ZU v Commission
(Case T-462/20)
(2020/C 329/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZU (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 5 September 2019, denying information relevant for his defence, and of 6 April 2020, rejecting his complaint;










—


order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 50 000, in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, together with interest at the legal rate until payment in full has been made; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





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 violation of the applicant’s right of defence and his right to effective remedy.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the Appointing Authority made a manifest error in assessing the subject matter of the complaint, omitting a key plea and showing a disregard for the likelihood of/change in the applicant’s legal situation.
Case C-129/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/80/EC — Article 12(2) — National schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation — Scope — Victim residing in the Member State in which the violent intentional crime was committed — Obligation for the national compensation scheme to cover that victim — Concept of ‘fair and appropriate compensation’ — Liability of Member States in the event of a breach of EU law)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: help for victims, indemnification, physical aggression, sexual violence, violence








C_2020297EN.01001302.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/13






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v BV
(Case C-129/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/80/EC - Article 12(2) - National schemes on compensation to victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation - Scope - Victim residing in the Member State in which the violent intentional crime was committed - Obligation for the national compensation scheme to cover that victim - Concept of ‘fair and appropriate compensation’ - Liability of Member States in the event of a breach of EU law)
(2020/C 297/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

Defendant: BV

Intervening party: Procura della Repubblica di Torino

Operative part of the judgment







1.


EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the rules on the non-contractual liability of a Member State for damage caused by the breach of that law applies, on the ground that that Member State did not transpose, within the appropriate time, Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, as regards victims residing in that Member State, on the territory of which the violent intentional crime was committed;










2.


Article 12(2) of Directive 2004/80 must be interpreted as meaning that a fixed rate of compensation awarded to victims of sexual violence under the national scheme of compensation to victims of violent intentional crime cannot be classified as ‘fair and appropriate’, within the meaning of that provision, if it is fixed without taking into account the seriousness of the consequences, for the victims, of the crime committed and does not therefore represent an appropriate contribution to the reparation of the material and non-material harm suffered.






(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Judgment of the Court of 16 July 2020 in Case E-8/19 Scanteam AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Definition of ‘contracting authority’ – Foreign mission of an EFTA State – Applicability of EEA law – Article 126 EEA – Geographic scope of the EEA Agreement) 2020/C 374/09
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, application of EU law, foreign investment, public procurement, third country








C_2020374EN.01004701.xml










5.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/47






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 16 July 2020
in Case E-8/19
Scanteam AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs


(Public procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Definition of ‘contracting authority’ – Foreign mission of an EFTA State – Applicability of EEA law – Article 126 EEA – Geographic scope of the EEA Agreement)


(2020/C 374/09)
In Case E-8/19, Scanteam AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Complaints Board for Public Procurement (Klagenemnda for offentlige anskaffelser) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, as adapted to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 16 July 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:
Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement is applicable to a procurement procedure undertaken by a foreign mission of an EFTA State in a third country, if the procurement is sufficiently closely linked to the EEA.
Judgment of the Court of 16 July 2020 in Case E-7/19 Tak – Malbik ehf. v the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration and Þróttur ehf. (Public Procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Public works contract – Public service contract) 2020/C 374/07
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Iceland, public procurement, services contract, works contract








C_2020374EN.01004401.xml










5.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 374/44






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 16 July 2020
in Case E-7/19
Tak – Malbik ehf. v the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration and Þróttur ehf.


(Public Procurement – Directive 2014/24/EU – Public works contract – Public service contract)


(2020/C 374/07)
In Case E-7/19, Tak – Malbik ehf. v the Icelandic Road and Coastal Administration and Þróttur ehf – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by the Public Procurement Complaints Committee (Kærunefnd útboðsmála) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, and in particular points (6), (7) and (9) of Article 2(1) thereof, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen, and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 16 July 2020, the operative part of which is as follows:
In circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, there is no public works contract within the meaning of point (6) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC. A public contract which has as its object the provision of services other than those referred to in point (6) of Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU, constitutes a public service contract within the meaning of point (9) of Article 2(1) thereof.
Case C-249/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — JE v KF (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 — Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation — Uniform rules — Article 10 — Application of the law of the forum)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: divorce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial separation, private international law








C_2020297EN.01001601.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/16






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul București — Romania) — JE v KF
(Case C-249/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Uniform rules - Article 10 - Application of the law of the forum)
(2020/C 297/20)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul București

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: JE

Defendant: KF

Operative part of the judgment

Article 10 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘where the law applicable by virtue of Article 5 or Article 8 makes no provision for divorce’ applies only where the foreign law applicable makes no provision for divorce in any form.


(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case C-771/18: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Internal markets in electricity and natural gas — Electricity and natural gas transmission systems — Conditions for access — Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 — Article 14(1) — Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 — Article 13(1) — Costs — Setting the charges for network access — Directive 2009/72/EC — Article 37(17) — Directive 2009/73/EC — Article 41(17) — Domestic remedies — Principle of effective judicial protection)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electrical energy, electricity supply, energy grid, energy transport, gas pipeline, gas supply, infringement of EU law, natural gas, single market, trans-European network








C_2020297EN.01001002.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/10






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — European Commission v Hungary
(Case C-771/18) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Internal markets in electricity and natural gas - Electricity and natural gas transmission systems - Conditions for access - Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 - Article 14(1) - Regulation (EC) No 715/2009 - Article 13(1) - Costs - Setting the charges for network access - Directive 2009/72/EC - Article 37(17) - Directive 2009/73/EC - Article 41(17) - Domestic remedies - Principle of effective judicial protection)
(2020/C 297/13)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented initially by Z. Fehér and Z. Wagner, and subsequently by Z. Fehér, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to safeguard the right to an effective remedy against the rules of the national regulatory authority setting the charges for network access, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 37(17) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, and Article 41(17) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the European Commission and Hungary to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Case C-686/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘Soho Group’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Credit agreements for consumers — Directive 2008/48/EC — Concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ — Costs for extending the credit)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, contract terms, cost of borrowing, deadline for payment








C_2020297EN.01001902.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/19






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) — Latvia) — SIA ‘Soho Group’ v Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs
(Case C-686/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Credit agreements for consumers - Directive 2008/48/EC - Concept of ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’ - Costs for extending the credit)
(2020/C 297/25)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa (Senāts)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA ‘Soho Group’

Defendant: Patērētāju tiesību aizsardzības centrs

Operative part of the judgment

The concept of the ‘total cost of the credit to the consumer’, contained in Article 3(g) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that that concept includes the costs for any extension of the credit, provided that, first, the actual and precise conditions for its possible extension, including the duration of that extension, form part of the terms and conditions agreed between the creditor and the borrower in the credit agreement and, second, those costs are known to the creditor.


(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission 2020/C 234 I/01
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: European Food Safety Authority
Subjects: EU Member State, consumer protection, food inspection, food safety, institutional cooperation








CI2020234EN.01000101.xml










16.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CI 234/1






Networking of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA’s) mission
(2020/C 234 I/01)
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 (1), Article 36(2), provides that the European Food Safety Authority’s ‘Management Board, acting on a proposal from the Executive Director, shall draw up a list to be made public of competent organisations designated by the Member States which may assist the Authority, either individually or in networks, with its mission.’
The list was first drawn up by EFSA’s Management Board on 19 December 2006, and since then is:






(i)


updated regularly, on the basis of proposals from EFSA’s Executive Director, taking account of reviews or new designation proposals from the Member States (in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004, Article 2(4) (2)); and










(ii)


made public on EFSA’s website, where the latest updated list of competent organisations is published.




This respective information is available on the EFSA website, at the following locations:






(i)


the latest amendment to the list of competent organisations by EFSA’s Management Board on 29 June 2020 – (http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/83rd-management-board-web-meeting); and










(ii)


the updated list of competent organisations – http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/partnersnetworks/scorg




EFSA will keep this Notice updated, specifically regarding the provided website links.
For more information please contact Cooperation.Article36@efsa.europa.eu


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ L 31, 1.2.2002, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2230/2004 of 23 December 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 with regard to the network of organisations operating in the fields within the European Food Safety Authority’s mission, (OJ L 379, 24.12.2004, p. 64), as last amended.
Case C-584/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ADR Center SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 — Audit reports questioning the eligibility of certain costs — European Commission decision to recover unduly paid sums — Article 299 TFEU — Power of the Commission to adopt an enforceable decision within contractual relationships — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Effective judicial protection)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU aid, EU programme, audit, eligibility criteria, financial aid, jurisdiction, powers of the institutions (EU), reimbursement of aid








C_2020297EN.01000301.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/3






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ADR Center SpA v European Commission
(Case C-584/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Grant agreements concluded in the context of the Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 - Audit reports questioning the eligibility of certain costs - European Commission decision to recover unduly paid sums - Article 299 TFEU - Power of the Commission to adopt an enforceable decision within contractual relationships - Jurisdiction of the EU judicature - Effective judicial protection)
(2020/C 297/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: ADR Center SpA (represented by: A. Guillerme and T. Bontinck, avocats)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders ADR Center SpA to bear, in addition to two thirds of its own costs, two thirds of the costs incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to one third of its own costs, one third of the costs incurred by ADR Center SpA.






(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Case C-549/19: Order of the President of the Court of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — DX v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, imprisonment, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, offence, removal, residence permit








C_2020329EN.01001004.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/10






Order of the President of the Court of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha — Spain) — DX v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo
(Case C-549/19) (1)

(2020/C 329/18)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Case C-714/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ACTC GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Taiga AB (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Application for registration of EU word mark tigha — Opposition filed by the proprietor of the earlier EU trade mark TAIGA — Partial dismissal of the application for registration — Article 8(1)(b) — Assessment of the likelihood of confusion — Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs at issue — Article 42(2) — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Proof of use ‘in relation to part … of the goods or services’ — Determination of an independent subcategory of goods)
Date: 2020-07-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020297EN.01001001.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/10






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2020 — ACTC GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Taiga AB
(Case C-714/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Application for registration of EU word mark tigha - Opposition filed by the proprietor of the earlier EU trade mark TAIGA - Partial dismissal of the application for registration - Article 8(1)(b) - Assessment of the likelihood of confusion - Assessment of the conceptual similarity of the signs at issue - Article 42(2) - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Proof of use ‘in relation to part … of the goods or services’ - Determination of an independent subcategory of goods)
(2020/C 297/12)
Language of the case: English.

Parties


Appellant: ACTC GmbH (represented by: V. Hoene, S. Gantenbrink and D. Eickemeier, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent), Taiga AB, represented by C. Eckhartt, A. von Mühlendahl, K. Thanbichler-Brandl and C. Fluhme, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders ACTC GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.