do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-467/20: Action brought on 22 July 2020 — Industria de Diseño Textil v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA)
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering, foodstuff, fresh vegetable, fruit juice, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2020304EN.01001901.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/19






Action brought on 22 July 2020 — Industria de Diseño Textil v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA)
(Case T-467/20)
(2020/C 304/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil; SA (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ffauf Italia SpA (Riese Pio X, Italy)

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 word mark ZARA — Application for registration No 89 29952

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2020 in Case R 2040/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the contested decision in so far as it upheld the opposition for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 35 and 43 and reject the existence of likelihood of confusion within the meaning of article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council for all the contested goods and services;










—


order EUIPO and if the case might be, the other party in proceedings before the EUIPO, to pay the costs of the current appeal.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) 2868/95;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-338/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź-Bałuty v D.P.
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: enforcement of ruling, fine, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, translation








C_2021019EN.01001501.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź-Bałuty v D.P.
(Case C-338/20)
(2021/C 19/19)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź-Bałuty

Defendant: D.P.

Questions referred

Does the service on a sentenced person of a decision imposing a financial penalty, without providing a translation into a language which the addressee understands, entitle the authority of the enforcing State to refuse to enforce the decision on the basis of the provisions implementing Article 20(3) of Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA (1) on the grounds of a breach of the right to fair trial?


(1)  Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16–30).
Case T-377/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2020 — KN v EESC (Application for interim relief — Civil service — Member of the EESC — Harassment — OLAF investigation — EESC Bureau decision — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, administrator, decision-making body (EU), disciplinary proceedings, harassment at work








C_2020348EN.01002102.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/21






Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2020 — KN v EESC
(Case T-377/20 R)
(Application for interim relief - Civil service - Member of the EESC - Harassment - OLAF investigation - EESC Bureau decision - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
(2020/C 348/30)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KN (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and M. Aboud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, K. Gambino, X. Chamodraka, I. Pouli and A. Carvajal García-Valdecasas, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking, first, suspension of enforcement of the decision of the EESC of 9 June 2020 by which the applicant was discharged from all supervisory and personnel management activities and, second, provisional suspension of the delivery of that decision to the institutions of the European Union and certain bodies of the Member States.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-332/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Roma Multiservizi SpA, Rekeep SpA v Roma Capitale, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
Date: 2020-07-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, invitation to tender, mixed-ownership company, principle of proportionality, public authorities, public-private partnership, shareholder, tendering








C_2020329EN.01000601.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 22 July 2020 — Roma Multiservizi SpA, Rekeep SpA v Roma Capitale, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
(Case C-332/20)
(2020/C 329/08)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Roma Multiservizi SpA, Rekeep SpA

Respondents: Roma Capitale, Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

Questions referred







1.


For the purposes of determining the minimum limit of 30 % participation by the private partner in a future semi-public company — the limit deemed appropriate by the Italian legislature in implementation of the principles of EU law set in relation to European case-law — is it compatible with EU law and the correct interpretation of recitals 14 and 32 and Articles 12 and 18 of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) and of Article 30 of Directive 2014/23/EU, (2) with reference also to Article 107 TFEU, for consideration to be given solely to the legal form/on-paper composition of that partner or may — or in fact must — the authority launching the tender also consider its own indirect participation in the private partner submitting a bid?










2.


If the answer to the above question is yes, is it consistent and in line with the principles of EU law, and in particular with the principles of fair competition, proportionality and appropriateness, for the authority launching the tender to be able to exclude from the tender a private partner submitting a bid, where the effective participation of that private partner in the future semi-public company is in fact less than 30 %, on account of the direct or indirect public participation identified?






(1)  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 (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).

(2)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).