do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9802 — Liberty Global/DPG Media/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 71/03
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Internet access provider, economic concentration, merger control, postal and telecommunications services, publishing, television








C_2021071EN.01005601.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 71/56






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9802 — Liberty Global/DPG Media/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 71/03)
On 12 August 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 32020M9802. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-382/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — AL v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2020423EN.01002002.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — AL v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-382/20)
(2020/C 423/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AL

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-385/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 49, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 August 2020 — EL, TP v Caixabank, S. A.
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: access to the courts, consumer protection, legal expenses, unfair terms of contract








C_2020423EN.01002201.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 49, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 August 2020 — EL, TP v Caixabank, S. A.
(Case C-385/20)
(2020/C 423/32)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 49, Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: EL, TP

Defendant: Caixabank, S. A.

Questions referred







1.


Does the interpretation of Articles 251, 394(3) and 411 of the LEC [Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil] (Law on Civil Procedure) set out in the reasoned decision of 1 October 2019, which equates the amount at issue in the proceedings with the financial interest of the dispute and, consequently, leads to a reduction of the fees that the consumer has paid his or her lawyer, on the basis of a fixed sum (EUR 18 000), established in law only in respect of an amount that cannot be estimated and not an amount that is unspecified, conflict with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the Directive, (1) since it cannot restore the consumer to the factual and legal position which he or she would have been in if that term had not existed, even though there is, in the consumer’s favour, a judicial declaration that the term is unfair, and since it does not remove an unreasonable procedural requirement relating to a limitation of costs where such removal would ensure that the consumer has the most suitable and effective means of legitimately exercising his or her rights?










2.


Does Article 394(3) of the LEC in itself conflict with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the Directive and make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise in court the rights which the Directive grants to consumers, since the limitation which that article imposes on consumers, in the sense that they have to bear a portion of their own procedural costs, means that the consumer cannot be restored to the factual and legal position which he or she would have been in if that term had not existed, even though there is, in the consumer’s favour, a judicial declaration that the term is unfair, and since it does not remove an unreasonable procedural requirement relating to a limitation of costs where such removal would ensure that the consumer has the most suitable and effective means of legitimately exercising his or her rights?






(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).
Case C-384/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — DP v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2020423EN.01002102.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — DP v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-384/20)
(2020/C 423/31)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DP

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-392/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Mokotowa w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 12 August 2020 — European Chemicals Agency v Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Central Bank, European Chemicals Agency, European Commission, civil procedure, claim, decision (EU), enforcement of ruling, jurisdiction








C_2020423EN.01002301.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Mokotowa w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 12 August 2020 — European Chemicals Agency v Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej
(Case C-392/20)
(2020/C 423/34)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Mokotowa w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: European Chemicals Agency

Defendant: Miejskie Przedsiębiorstwo Energetyki Cieplnej

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 299 TFEU be interpreted as being applicable solely to decisions taken by the Council, the Commission or the European Central Bank, or is it also applicable to decisions taken by the European Chemicals Agency relating to the imposition of an additional administrative charge?










2.


Must the provision of Article 299 TFEU that an enforcement clause is to be appended without any formality other than verification of the authenticity of the decision be interpreted as meaning that the national court, when ruling on the enforcement clause and applying national civil-procedure rules, is not entitled to examine whether or not the claim to which the enforceable order relates is time-barred?
Case C-387/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justyna Gawlica, Notary in Krapkowice — Krapkowice (Poland) lodged on 12 August 2020 — OKR
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bilateral agreement, foreign national, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, law of succession, residence, third country








C_2021053EN.01001502.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justyna Gawlica, Notary in Krapkowice — Krapkowice (Poland) lodged on 12 August 2020 — OKR
(Case C-387/20)
(2021/C 53/19)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Justyna Gawlica, Notary in Krapkowice

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: OKR

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (1) be interpreted as meaning that a person who is not a citizen of the European Union is also entitled to choose the law of his or her native country as the law governing all matters relating to succession?










2.


Must Article 75, in conjunction with Article 22, of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a third country does not govern the choice of law applicable to a case involving succession but indicates the law applicable to that case involving succession, a national of that third country residing in a Member State bound by that bilateral agreement may make a choice of law?
and in particular:






—


must a bilateral agreement with a third country expressly exclude the choice of a specific law and not merely govern the lex successionis using objective connecting factors in order for its provisions to take precedence over Article 22 of Regulation No 650/2012?










—


is the freedom to choose the law governing succession and to make the applicable law uniform by making a choice of law — at least to the extent determined by the EU legislature in Article 22 of Regulation No 650/2012 — one of the principles underlying judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the European Union, which may not be infringed even where bilateral agreements with third countries apply which take precedence over Regulation No 650/2012?










(1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.
Case C-383/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — LK v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2020423EN.01002101.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — LK v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-383/20)
(2020/C 423/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: LK

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case C-386/20 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2020 by eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2020 in Case T-646/19, eSky Group IP v EUIPO — Gröpel (e)
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, package travel, provision of services, registered trade mark, reservation, trade-mark law, travel agency








C_2021044EN.01001302.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/13






Appeal brought on 12 August 2020 by eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 10 June 2020 in Case T-646/19, eSky Group IP v EUIPO — Gröpel (e)
(Case C-386/20 P)
(2021/C 44/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: eSky Group IP sp. z o.o. (represented by: P. Kurcman, radca prawny)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Gerhard Gröpel
By order of 21 October 2020, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) decided that the appeal should not be allowed to proceed and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.
Case C-381/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — VR v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2020423EN.01002001.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — VR v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-381/20)
(2020/C 423/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VR

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 11 August 2020 2020/C 264/02
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020264EN.01000201.xml










12.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 August 2020
(2020/C 264/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1783 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,97 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4469 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89843 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2835 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0743 




ISK


Iceland króna


161,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,5658 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,155 




HUF


Hungarian forint


345,03 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4018 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8355 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,5410 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6406 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5656 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1320 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7833 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6154 




KRW


South Korean won


1 393,79 




ZAR


South African rand


20,6263 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1857 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4795 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 348,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9400 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,615 




RUB


Russian rouble


85,6858 




THB


Thai baht


36,598 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,4068 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,3028 




INR


Indian rupee


87,8620 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-511/20: Action brought on 12 August 2020 — Zardini v Commission
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), equal treatment, professional qualifications, rights of the defence








C_2020320EN.01003201.xml










28.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 320/32






Action brought on 12 August 2020 — Zardini v Commission
(Case T-511/20)
(2020/C 320/63)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Alessandro Zardini (Marano di Valpollicella, Italy) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of 20 June 2019 by which the applicant was excluded from taking part in the tests at the Assessment Centre for Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;










—


annul the decision of 31 October 2019 rejecting the request for review of the exclusion from Competition EPSO/AD/371/19;










—


annul the decision of the appointing authority of 7 May 2020 dismissing the administrative appeal brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Cases T-456/20, LA v Commission, and T-474/20, LD v Commission.
Case T-162/20 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 12 August 2020 — Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v EFSA (Interim relief — Plant protection products — Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 — Publication of the conclusion on the review conducted by EFSA regarding the reconsideration of the approval of the active substance mancozeb — Request for certain passages to be treated as confidential — Refusal to grant confidential treatment — Application for interim measures — No prima facie case)
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, disclosure of information, health risk, legality, market approval, pesticide, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, trade information








C_2020371EN.01001502.xml










3.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/15






Order of the President of the General Court of 12 August 2020 — Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v EFSA
(Case T-162/20 R)
(Interim relief - Plant protection products - Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 - Publication of the conclusion on the review conducted by EFSA regarding the reconsideration of the approval of the active substance mancozeb - Request for certain passages to be treated as confidential - Refusal to grant confidential treatment - Application for interim measures - No prima facie case)
(2020/C 371/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and S. Englebert, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented by: D. Detken and S. Gabbi, acting as Agents, and by G. Rusconi and O. Cesana, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of EFSA Decision EFSA/LA/DEC/22911258/2020 of 28 January 2020 concerning the request for internal review of the decision relating to the applicant’s requests for confidential treatment of the conclusion on the peer review of the risk assessment of the active substance mancozeb.

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim relief is dismissed.










2.


The order of 7 April 2020 made in Case T-162/20 R is cancelled.










3.


The costs are reserved.
Case C-380/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — BQ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2020423EN.01001902.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 12 August 2020 — BQ v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Case C-380/20)
(2020/C 423/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BQ

Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

Question referred

Does a strike by the air carrier’s own employees that is called by a trade union constitute an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1)



(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2020/C 264/03
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU Member State, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2020264EN.01000301.xml










12.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 264/3






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2020/C 264/03)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


19.7.2020 at 24:00 UTC




Duration


19.7.2020 at 24:00 UTC- 31.12.2020




Member State


European Union (All Member States)




Stock or Group of stocks


RED/N3M.




Species


Redfish (Sebastes spp.)




Zone


NAFO 3M




Type(s) of fishing vessels


—-




Reference number


09/TQ123






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-526/20: Action brought on 12 August 2020 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DEVIN)
Date: 2020-08-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020339EN.01002802.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/28






Action brought on 12 August 2020 — Devin v EUIPO — Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DEVIN)
(Case T-526/20)
(2020/C 339/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Devin EAD (Devin, Bulgaria) (represented by: B. Van Asbroeck, G. de Villegas and C. Haine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haskovo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Haskovo, Bulgaria)

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 DEVIN — European Union trade mark No 9 408 865

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2020 in Case R 2535/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Articles (7)(1)(c) and 7(3) or Article 59(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Article (7)(1)(f) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a), in conjunction with Article (7)(1)(g) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.