do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-479/20: Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Eurobolt and Others v Commission
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, Malaysia, anti-dumping duty, bolt and screw industry, import (EU), iron, originating product, right to justice, steel








C_2020304EN.01002201.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/22






Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Eurobolt and Others v Commission
(Case T-479/20)
(2020/C 304/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Eurobolt BV (‘s-Heerenberg, Netherlands), Fabory Nederland BV (Tilburg, Netherlands), ASF Fischer BV (Lelystad, Netherlands), Stafa Group BV (Maarheeze, Netherlands) (represented by: S. De Knop, B. Natens and A. Willems, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible;










—


annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/611 of 30 April 2020 re-imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (1); and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that by retroactively ‘repairing’ a violation of an essential procedural requirement, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Articles 266 and 264 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the principle of effective judicial protection.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that because it has no valid legal basis, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (2), Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Treaty on the European Union (‘TEU’) and the principle of good administration.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that by prohibiting repayment and ordering collection of repaid anti-dumping duties, Regulation (EU) 2020/611 violates Articles 5(1) and 5(2) TEU.






(1)  OJ 2020 L 141, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9893 — C&G/Fischer/Craftnote) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 34/03
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building services, economic concentration, information technology industry, merger control, technology, toy industry, vehicle parts, wholesale trade








C_2021034EN.01000301.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9893 — C&G/Fischer/Craftnote)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 34/03)
On 28 July 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 German language 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 32020M9893. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-346/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2020 — UW v Ryanair DAC
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2020320EN.01001002.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2020 — UW v Ryanair DAC
(Case C-346/20)
(2020/C 320/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UW

Defendant: Ryanair DAC

Question referred

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a long delay of a flight can also be ‘caused’ by extraordinary circumstances where those circumstances occurred the previous day on an earlier flight made by the scheduled aircraft?
By decision of the Court of Justice of 6 August 2020, the case was removed from the Court’s register.


(1)  OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9888 – SEGRO/PSPIB/SELP/Target Portfolio) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 254/01
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Spain, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real property, storage








C_2020254EN.01000101.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9888 – SEGRO/PSPIB/SELP/Target Portfolio)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 254/01)
On 28 July 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 32020M9888. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-347/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 28 July 2020 — SIA Zinātnes parks v Finanšu ministrija
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, administrative transparency, company in difficulties, company law, control of State aid, financial situation, share capital, terms for aid








C_2020339EN.01000701.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 28 July 2020 — SIA Zinātnes parks v Finanšu ministrija
(Case C-347/20)
(2020/C 339/09)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā rajona tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SIA Zinātnes parks

Defendant: Finanšu ministrija

Questions referred







1.


Must the concept of ‘subscribed share capital’ in Article 2(18)(a) of Commission Regulation No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 (1) of the Treaty, in conjunction with other EU legal provisions relating to company law, be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining subscribed share capital, only particulars that have been published in the manner laid down by the national laws of each Member State may be taken into account, bearing in mind that the particulars in question are thus deemed to become effective only from that moment?










2.


When assessing the concept of ‘undertaking in difficulty’ in Article 2(18) of Commission Regulation No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty, is it necessary to attach significance to the requirements, laid down as part of the procedure for selecting projects for European funds, concerning which documents are to be submitted as evidence of the financial situation of the undertaking in question?










3.


If the reply to the second question referred is in the affirmative, is a provision of domestic law on the selection of projects, which establishes that no further clarification of project applications may be made once the application has been submitted, compatible with the principles of non-discrimination and transparency established in Article 125(3)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006? (2)







(1)  OJ 2014 L 187, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2013 L 347, p. 320.
Case T-478/20: Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Bigben Connected v EUIPO — Forsee Power (FORCE POWER)
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electricity storage device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020304EN.01002101.xml










14.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 304/21






Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Bigben Connected v EUIPO — Forsee Power (FORCE POWER)
(Case T-478/20)
(2020/C 304/25)
Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties


Applicant: Bigben Connected (Fretin, France) (represented by: M. Chaminade, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Forsee Power (Paris, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark FORCE POWER — Application for registration No 16 541 377

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 May 2020 in Case R 2184/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the opposing party to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Opposition Division and those of the appeal before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Council Directive 85/148/EEC of 29 January 1985 amending Directive 81/645/EEC concerning the Community list of less-favoured farming areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC (Greece) (Official Journal of the European Communities L 56 of 25 February 1985)
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EAGGF Guidance Section, Greece, State aid, agrarian reform, hill farming, less-favoured agricultural area








L_2020242EN.01004101.xml










28.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 242/41







Corrigendum to Council Directive 85/148/EEC of 29 January 1985 amending Directive 81/645/EEC concerning the Community list of less-favoured farming areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC (Greece)

(
Official Journal of the European Communities L 56 of 25 February 1985
)








1.


On page 18, in the Annex, table titled ‘ΠΙΝΑΚΑΣ ΟΡΕΙΝΩΝ ΔΗΜΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΩΝ (ΑΡΘΡΟ 3 ΠΑΡΑΓΡΑΦΟΣ 3)’, second column, point 30:




for:







‘30.


Νόμος ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΑΣ’,





read:







‘30.


Νομός ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΑΣ’.











2.


On page 19, in the Annex, table titled ‘ΠΙΝΑΚΑΣ ΟΡΕΙΝΩΝ ΔΗΜΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΩΝ (ΑΡΘΡΟ 3 ΠΑΡΑΓΡΑΦΟΣ 3)’, under ‘30. Νομός ΚΟΡΙΝΘΙΑΣ’, first column, point 59:




for:


                  ‘Σαραντάπηχου (Οικ. Σαρανταπηχιώτικα)’,

read:


                  ‘Σαρανταπήχου (εκτός οικισμού Σαρανταπηχιώτικα)’.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 27 July 2020 2020/C 248/02
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020248EN.01000201.xml










28.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 248/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 July 2020
(2020/C 248/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1760 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,88 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4436 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91340 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2678 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0838 




ISK


Iceland króna


158,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6683 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,193 




HUF


Hungarian forint


345,91 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4016 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8303 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,0552 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6472 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5729 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1154 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7605 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6216 




KRW


South Korean won


1 407,15 




ZAR


South African rand


19,3380 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2344 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5163 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 075,52 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


5,0009 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,817 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,0682 




THB


Thai baht


37,050 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,0919 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,0083 




INR


Indian rupee


87,8850 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9897 – Actineo/SHAM/Antevis JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 254/02
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: claim, economic concentration, health care, insurance, merger control, provision of services








C_2020254EN.01000201.xml










3.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 254/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9897 – Actineo/SHAM/Antevis JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 254/02)
On 28 July 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 32020M9897. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-493/20: Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Koc (SFORA WEAR)
Date: 2020-07-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2020320EN.01002701.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/27






Action brought on 28 July 2020 — Sfera Joven v EUIPO — Koc (SFORA WEAR)
(Case T-493/20)
(2020/C 320/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Sfera Joven, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andrzej Koc (Kobyłka, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark SFORA WEAR — Application for registration No 15 853 245

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2020 in Case R 2030/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the opponent, it upholds the decision of the Opposition Division handed down in the opposition proceedings B 2 834 862, granting in part the EU trade mark No 15 853 245 SFORA WEAR (word), to distinguish specific goods in Classes 18 and 25;










—


order any party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Inadequate assessment of the evidence of use of the opposing mark, and infringement of Article 10(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and breach of the classification criteria laid down in the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957 (in its most recent version), together with the Explanatory Notes and Class Analysis prepared by WIPO.