do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information concerning the entry into force of the Protocol amending the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia
Date: 2020-08-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Croatia, Mediterranean region (EU), Union for the Mediterranean, accession to the European Union, agreement (EU), air transport, protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement








L_2020274EN.01000201.xml










21.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 274/2







Information concerning the entry into force of the Protocol amending the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia

The Protocol amending the Euro-Mediterranean Aviation Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, of the other part, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia, signed in Brussels on 3 May 2016, entered into force on 2 August 2020, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol, as the last notification was deposited on 2 July 2020.
Case C-400/20 P: Appeal brought on 21 August 2020 by Dermavita Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-104/19, Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)
Date: 2020-08-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01002102.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/21






Appeal brought on 21 August 2020 by Dermavita Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2020 in Case T-104/19, Dermavita v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM)
(Case C-400/20 P)
(2021/C 35/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Dermavita Co. Ltd (represented by: D. Todorov, адвокат)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Allergan Holdings France
By order of 3 December 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9901 – GIG Solar/Siemens/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 284/01
Date: 2020-08-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: automation, banking, consultancy, digitisation, economic concentration, financial services, investment company, merger control, service, technology








C_2020284EN.01000101.xml










28.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 284/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9901 – GIG Solar/Siemens/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 284/01)
On 21 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 32020M9901. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 20 August 2020 2020/C 276/01
Date: 2020-08-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020276EN.01000101.xml










21.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 276/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 August 2020
(2020/C 276/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1850 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,46 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4451 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90173 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3555 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0786 




ISK


Iceland króna


162,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6068 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,061 




HUF


Hungarian forint


350,39 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3914 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8391 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,7129 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6544 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5654 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1840 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8158 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6220 




KRW


South Korean won


1 408,22 




ZAR


South African rand


20,4136 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,1985 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5356 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 503,64 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9444 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,707 




RUB


Russian rouble


87,6300 




THB


Thai baht


37,245 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6454 




MXN


Mexican peso


26,3712 




INR


Indian rupee


88,9920 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Protocol amending the Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Moldova, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia
Date: 2020-08-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Croatia, Moldova, accession to the European Union, agreement (EU), air space, air traffic, airline, freedom of the skies, protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement








L_2020274EN.01000101.xml










21.8.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 274/1







Information concerning the entry into force of the Protocol amending the Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Moldova, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia

The Protocol amending the Common Aviation Area Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Moldova, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia, signed in Brussels on 22 July 2015, entered into force on 2 August 2020, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Protocol, as the last notification was deposited on 2 July 2020.
Case T-530/20: Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Interfloat and GMB v Commission
Date: 2020-08-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid to undertakings, company in difficulties, control of State aid, glass industry, solar collector








C_2020329EN.01002601.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 329/26






Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Interfloat and GMB v Commission
(Case T-530/20)
(2020/C 329/46)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicants: Interfloat Corp. (Ruggell, Lichtenstein) and GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg GmbH (Tschernitz, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and R. Sangi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2020) 3287 final of 26 May 2020 on the measures SA.39990 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) (ex/2014/FC) (ex 2014/CP) — implemented by Belgium for Ducatt NV; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law.
The applicants submit that the Commission was not permitted to close the formal investigation procedure that was opened following a complaint made by the applicants. Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (1) (‘the regulation on State aid procedure’) provides for a specific and exhaustive procedure for the closure of the formal investigation procedure. It requires, in particular, that the formal investigation procedure be concluded by means of one of the four decisions exhaustively set out in Article 9. Closure of a formal investigation procedure is envisaged only if the Member State concerned withdraws its notification (Article 10). In the contested decision the Commission disregarded the wording, scheme and purpose of Article 108(2) TFEU and of the regulation on State aid procedure and thus the applicants’ procedural rights in the formal investigation procedure. There is in fact no sufficient justification for the closure of the procedure.


(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Case T-531/20: Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF)
Date: 2020-08-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, special chemicals, trade-mark law








C_2020339EN.01003101.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/31






Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — Rolf Lubricants (ROLF)
(Case T-531/20)
(2020/C 339/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: T. Heremans and L. Depypere, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rolf Lubricants GmbH (Leverkusen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark ROLF — International registration designating the European Union No 1 286 835

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2020 in Case R 1958/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


in the alternative, alter the contested decision so that its action is held to be well-founded and, consequently its opposition upheld;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-532/20: Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Phi Group v EUIPO — Gruppo Cadoro (REDELLO)
Date: 2020-08-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020348EN.01002401.xml










19.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/24






Action brought on 21 August 2020 — Phi Group v EUIPO — Gruppo Cadoro (REDELLO)
(Case T-532/20)
(2020/C 348/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Phi Group GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Campolini and L. Bidaine, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gruppo Cadoro GmbH (Eglisau, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trademark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark REDELLO — Application for registration No 17 929 193

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 June 2020 in Case R 2677/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


find that the opposition against the trademark application fails in its entirety or, alternatively, refer the case to the EUIPO in order for it to draw all the necessary consequences form the Court’s decision;










—


order the other party to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings before the Board of Appeal;










—


order EUIPO and, if necessary, the intervener, to support the cost of the present proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-529/20: Action brought on 21 August 2020 — LR v EIB
Date: 2020-08-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, principle of proportionality, reassignment, termination of employment








C_2020339EN.01003001.xml










12.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 339/30






Action brought on 21 August 2020 — LR v EIB
(Case T-529/20)
(2020/C 339/38)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: LR (represented by: Á. Gómez de la Cruz Pérez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 9 January 2020 rejecting the applicant’s request for a resettlement allowance on the applicant’s return to his centre of interest at the end of his employment relationship with the defendant and the decision of 15 May 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint of 19 February 2020 against the defendant’s decision of 9 January 2020.










—


annul the defendant’s decision of 15 May 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint of 19 February 2020 seeking the recognition of his right to a resettlement allowance in the event that the General Court of the European Union or the Court of Justice of the European Union recognises that right in respect of the applicants in case T-387/19, DF and DG v EIB.










—


order the defendant to pay the resettlement allowance including default interest calculated at the European Central Bank rate increased by two percentage points, until that allowance is paid in full.










—


order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging manifest error of law.






—


The applicant claims that the fresh interpretation from 2017 of the exception laid down in Article 13(1) of the EIB’s administrative provisions is vitiated by a manifest error of law and is contrary to its own acts.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the requirement to consult the staff representatives.






—


The applicant claims that the fresh interpretation amounts to a covert legislative procedure adopted by a body without jurisdiction, with no forms and procedures, in that it did not consult the Staff Committee.














3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality, acquired rights, legitimate expectations and the absence of any transitional arrangements.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of sound administration.