do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-510/20: Action brought on 14 August 2020 — Fachverband Spielhallen and LM v Commission
Date: 2020-08-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia, State aid, control of State aid, game of chance, gaming establishment, tax exemption, tax relief, tax system








C_2020329EN.01002301.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/23






Action brought on 14 August 2020 — Fachverband Spielhallen and LM v Commission
(Case T-510/20)
(2020/C 329/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Fachverband Spielhallen eV (Berlin, Germany) and LM (represented by: A. Bartosch and R. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as the defendant definitively rejected the complaint of the applicants in relation to Measure 3, namely the reduction of trade tax and income tax or corporation tax as a result of the deduction of the amounts paid in connection with the transfer of profits (‘profit skimming’) under Paragraph 14 of the SpielbankG NRW (Law on Public Casinos of North Rhine-Westphalia) from the basis of assessment of those taxes in North Rhine-Westphalia, and thus refused to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to that measure;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicants.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2019)8819 final of 9 December 2019 on State Aid SA.44944 (2019/C ex 2016/FC) Tax treatment of public casinos operators in Germany and SA.53552 (2019/C ex 2019/FC) Alleged guarantee for public casinos operators in Germany (Wirtschaftlichkeitsgarantie) — Germany.
In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the procedural rights of the applicants in that it refused to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation also to Measure 3. That plea in law is divided into four parts:






—


Failure to take account of the rules established by EU case-law in classifying the transfer of profits under Paragraph 14 of the SpielbankG NRW (old version) as a tax — Adoption of an erroneous premiss as the basis for the investigation.










—


Non-classification of the transfer of profits under Paragraph 14 of the SpielbankG NRW (old version) as a tax under the relevant provisions of German law.










—


Inappropriateness of the arguments relied on by the defendant in support of the fiscal nature of the transfer of profits.










—


Differentiation between general and special income taxes — reversal of the rule-exception relationship.
Case T-525/20: Action brought on 14 August 2020 — ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission
Date: 2020-08-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Denmark, State aid, Sweden, control of State aid, financial aid, postal service








C_2020390EN.01003801.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/38






Action brought on 14 August 2020 — ITD and Danske Fragtmænd v Commission
(Case T-525/20)
(2020/C 390/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: ITD, Brancheorganisation for den danske vejgodstransport (Padborg, Denmark) and Danske Fragtmænd A/S (Åbyhøj, Denmark) (represented by: L. Sandberg-Mørch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul European Commission Decision C(2020) 3006 final of 12 May 2020 in State aid case SA. 52489 (2018/FC) — Denmark, and in State aid case SA. 52658 (2018/FC) — Sweden (Alleged State aid to PostNord Logistics);










—


order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed its obligation to initiate the formal investigation procedure.






—


The applicants refer to evidence of serious difficulties relating to the length and the circumstances of the preliminary investigation procedure;










—


The applicants further refer to an insufficient and incomplete analysis by the defendant regarding the imputability of the capital injection and in particular to:






—


insufficient and incomplete analysis as the Commission has not relied on accurate, reliable and consistent data;










—


serious difficulties showed by the fact that the Commission erred when determining that the decision to grant the capital injection was adopted by PostNord Group AB and not by PostNord AB;










—


serious difficulties showed by the fact that the Commission erred when determining that the decision of PostNord AB’s Board of Directors to grant the capital injection is not imputable to the Danish and Swedish States.














—


The applicants finally refer to insufficient and incomplete analysis regarding the cross-subsidisation of PostNord Logistics’s costs by Post Danmark A/S.
Case C-388/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V. v Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG
Date: 2020-08-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, foodstuffs legislation, labelling, product quality








C_2020433EN.01001801.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 August 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V. v Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG
(Case C-388/20)
(2020/C 433/21)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e. V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Dr. August Oetker Nahrungsmittel KG

Questions referred







1.


Must the second subparagraph of Article 31(3) of the FIR (1) be interpreted as meaning that that article applies solely to foods which require preparation and for which preparation instructions have been provided?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does the phrase ‘per 100 g’ in the second subparagraph of Article 33(2) FIR only refer to 100 grams of the product as sold, or does it also — at least additionally — refer to 100 grams of the food after preparation?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18).
Case C-389/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.° 2 de Vigo (Spain) lodged on 14 August 2020 — CJ v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
Date: 2020-08-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, sexual discrimination, social security legislation, social-security benefit, social-security contribution








C_2020423EN.01002202.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 2 de Vigo (Spain) lodged on 14 August 2020 — CJ v Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
(Case C-389/20)
(2020/C 423/33)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n.o 2 de Vigo

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: CJ

Defendant: Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, (1) governing equal treatment, which precludes any discrimination whatsoever on grounds of sex, either directly or indirectly, as regards the obligation to pay social security contributions, and Article 5(b) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, (2) which lays down the same prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as regards the scope of social security schemes and the conditions of access to those schemes and the obligation to contribute, and the calculation of contributions, be interpreted as precluding a national provision like Article 251(d) LGSS, which provides: ‘d) The protection afforded by the Special Scheme for Domestic Workers shall not include protection in respect of unemployment.’?










2.


If the answer to that question is affirmative, must that statutory provision be regarded as an example of prohibited discrimination under Article 9(1)(e) and/or (k) of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006, in so far as the addressees of the provision at issue, Article 251(d) LGSS, are almost exclusively women?






(1)  OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.

(2)  OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9885 — HAL Investments/De Drie Eiken) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 347/01
Date: 2020-08-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, economic concentration, improvement of housing, investment company, merger control, property development








C_2020347EN.01000101.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 347/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9885 — HAL Investments/De Drie Eiken)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 347/01)
On 14 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 32020M9885. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9918 — Cummins/ETC/NPROXX) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 268/08
Date: 2020-08-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, engine, hydrogen, merger control, motor vehicle industry, natural gas, nuclear technology, pressure equipment, storage of hydrocarbons, vehicle parts








C_2020268EN.01002101.xml










14.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 268/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9918 — Cummins/ETC/NPROXX)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 268/08)

1.   
On 7 August 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Cummins Inc. (‘Cummins’, USA),










—


Enrichment Technology Company Ltd. (‘ETC’, UK),










—


NPROXX B.V. (‘NPROXX’, the Netherlands).




Cummins and ETC acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of NPROXX.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Cummins: Cummins is a globally active US manufacturer of diesel and gas engines and power supply systems,










—


for ETC: ETC is active in the design, development and manufacture of gas centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium for nuclear energy,










—


for NPROXX: NPROXX is active in the design, development and sale of composite pressure vessels for the storage and transportation of hydrogen or for compressed natural gases (CNG). The pressure vessels are used for different applications in particular in the automotive and transport sectors.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9918 — Cummins/ETC/NPROXX
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-512/20: Action brought on 14 August 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)
Date: 2020-08-14
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, peripheral








C_2020378EN.01003602.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/36






Action brought on 14 August 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)
(Case T-512/20)
(2020/C 378/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TrekStor GmbH (Bensheim, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, A. Schönfleisch and N. Willich, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Zagg Inc. (Salt Lake City, Utah, United States)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: European Union design No 1 253 876-0001

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 June 2020 in Case R 294/2019-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to declare the contested design invalid in accordance with Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 25(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 13 August 2020 2020/C 268/04
Date: 2020-08-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020268EN.01000401.xml










14.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 268/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

13 August 2020
(2020/C 268/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1833 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,58 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4474 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90373 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2748 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0784 




ISK


Iceland króna


161,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,5148 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,125 




HUF


Hungarian forint


344,93 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3968 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8348 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,6794 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6522 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5637 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1709 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8042 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6231 




KRW


South Korean won


1 402,22 




ZAR


South African rand


20,6405 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,2187 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5125 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 559,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9610 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,768 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,1809 




THB


Thai baht


36,741 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3766 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,4372 




INR


Indian rupee


88,5640 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9878 – Total/EDP Comercializadora) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 268/07
Date: 2020-08-14
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical energy, electricity supply, energy industry, energy production, gas industry, gas supply, merger control, oil industry, power plant








C_2020268EN.01002001.xml










14.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 268/20






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9878 – Total/EDP Comercializadora)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 268/07)

1.   
On 4 August 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Total SE (‘Total’, France),










—


EDP Comercializadora (‘EDP-C’, Spain).




Total acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of EDP-C.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Total: an international integrated energy producer and provider, active in all sectors of the oil and gas industry, as well as in the renewable energy and power generation sectors,










—


for EDP-C: thermal assets as well as electricity and gas supply business and other related services in particular the supply of electricity to (i) small industrial and commercial customers, (ii) small professional customers and (iii) eligible household customers as well as the retail supply of gas to (i) small industrial and commercial customers and (ii) eligible household.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9878 – Total/EDP Comercializadora
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.