do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-413/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 2 September 2020 — Belgian State v LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)
Date: 2020-09-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative procedure, civil aviation, crew, principle of legal certainty, professional qualifications, technical specification, transport licence








C_2020378EN.01002002.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 2 September 2020 — Belgian State v LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)
(Case C-413/20)
(2020/C 378/25)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Belgian State

Defendants: LO, OG, SH, MB, JD, OP, Bluetail Flight School SA (BFS)

Questions referred







1.


Does point 9 of Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 1178/2011 of 3 November 2011 laying down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to civil aviation aircrew pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) allow hours of training completed on an FNPT II flight simulator (instrument ground time) in excess of the number of 15 hours of MCC referred to in point 9(e)(2) and in excess of the maximum of 40 hours of instrument flight instruction in an FNPT II, referred to in point 9(e)(3)(ii), that is to say more than 55 hours of instrument ground time, to be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the 115 hours of instrument time referred to in point 9(e)?










2.


Does the answer to the first question vary depending on whether the hours completed in excess of the 15 hours and 40 hours referred to above consist of hours of MCC or of a different type of simulator training?










3.


If the answer to the two preceding questions is in the negative, does point 10 of Appendix 3 to Subpart A of Annex I to that regulation permit the CPL(A) licence to be granted after the candidate pilots have completed their training by a sufficient number of hours in an aircraft, without the skill test relating to instrument flight being retaken?










4.


If the answer to the three preceding questions is in the negative, does the general principle of legal certainty require that the interpretation of the legal rule in question provided by the Court of Justice be limited in time, so that, for example, it will apply only to candidate pilots who request the grant of a CPL(A) licence, or even to those who have commenced their training in order to obtain such a licence, after the date of the judgment of the Court of Justice?






(1)  OJ 2011 L 311, p. 1.
Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1252 of 2 September 2020 establishing a fisheries closure for cod in Norwegian waters of 1 and 2 for vessels flying the flag of Spain
Date: 2020-09-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Norway, Spain, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing, ship's flag, territorial waters








L_2020291EN.01000101.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 291/1








            COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) 2020/1252
of 2 September 2020
         
establishing a fisheries closure for cod in Norwegian waters of 1 and 2 for vessels flying the flag of Spain


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to 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), and in particular Article 36(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123 (2) lays down quotas for 2020.












(2)


According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock of cod in Norwegian waters of 1 and 2 by vessels flying the flag of or registered in Spain have exhausted the quota allocated for 2020.












(3)


It is therefore necessary to prohibit certain fishing activities for that stock,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1

Quota exhaustion

The fishing quota allocated to Spain for the stock of cod in Norwegian waters of 1 and 2 for 2020 referred to in the Annex shall be deemed to be exhausted from the date set out in that Annex.


Article 2

Prohibitions

Fishing activities for the stock referred to in Article 1 by vessels flying the flag of or registered in Spain shall be prohibited from the date set out in the Annex. In particular it shall be prohibited to retain on board, relocate, tranship or land fish from that stock caught by those vessels after that date.


Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at Brussels, 2 September 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Virginijus SINKEVIČIUS
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123 of 27 January 2020 fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters (OJ L 25, 30.1.2020, p. 1).




ANNEX






No


11/TQ123




Member State


Spain




Stock


COD/1N2AB.




Species


Cod (Gadus morhua)




Zone


Norwegian waters of 1 and 2




Closing date


18.8.2020
Case T-546/20: Action brought on 2 September 2020 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission
Date: 2020-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, information technology industry, public procurement, services contract, tendering








C_2020359EN.01001201.xml










26.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/12






Action brought on 2 September 2020 — Sopra Steria Benelux and Unisys Belgium v Commission
(Case T-546/20)
(2020/C 359/17)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Sopra Steria Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium), Unisys Belgium (Machelen, Belgium) (represented by: L. Masson and G. Tilman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the decision taken by the European Commission in the context of a public contract published under reference TAXUD/2019/OP/0006, entitled ‘CCN-Evolution: Specification, development, maintenance and 3rd level support of TAXUD IT platforms — Lot A: Evolution services for the CCN/CSI Platform’:






—


to reject the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicants;










—


to award the contract to the consortium ARHS-IBM;














—


order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging, first, breach of Article 23 of Annex I to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ 2018 L 193, p. 1). Second, that plea in law alleges a manifest error of assessment:






—


in so far as the Commission did not verify whether the tenderer’s prices were abnormal;










—


in so far as the Commission did not regard the tenderer’s bid as abnormally low.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, laid down in, inter alia, Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in so far as the Commission did not provide adequate reasons for its decision not to regard the tenderer’s bid as abnormally low.
Case T-801/19: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — DTE Systems v EUIPO Speed-Buster (PedalBox +) (Action for annulment — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark PedalBox + — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Misuse of rights — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law)
Date: 2020-09-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, electronic component, electronic equipment, engine, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2020371EN.01001501.xml










3.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 371/15






Order of the General Court of 2 September 2020 — DTE Systems v EUIPO Speed-Buster (PedalBox +)
(Case T-801/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark PedalBox + - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Misuse of rights - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law)
(2020/C 371/16)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: DTE Systems GmbH (Recklinghausen, Germany) (represented by: U. Vietmeyer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Speed-Buster GmbH & Co. KG (Sinzig, Germany) (represented by: C. Gries, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 September 2019 (Case R 1934/2018-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Speed-Buster and DTE Systems.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


DTE Systems GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.