do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-539/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Roaming on public mobile communications networks within the European Union — Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 — Article 6a — Article 6e(3) — Roaming provider required to automatically apply the regulated roaming tariff — Application to consumer having opted for a specific roaming tariff prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, provision of services, roaming, telephone charges, trans-European network, transmission network








C_2020378EN.01001401.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/14






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV v Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG
(Case C-539/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Roaming on public mobile communications networks within the European Union - Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 - Article 6a - Article 6e(3) - Roaming provider required to automatically apply the regulated roaming tariff - Application to consumer having opted for a specific roaming tariff prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012)
(2020/C 378/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband eV

Defendant: Telefónica Germany GmbH & Co. OHG

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6a and 6e(3) of Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015, must be interpreted as meaning that, as from 15 June 2017, roaming service providers were required to apply automatically to all their customers the regulated roaming tariff referred to, inter alia, in Article 6a of that regulation, irrespective of whether those customers had previously opted for a regulated roaming tariff or for an alternative tariff, unless they had, before the deadline of 15 June 2017, expressly indicated their choice to benefit from such an alternative tariff, in accordance with the procedure laid down in that regard in the first subparagraph of Article 6e(3) of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Case C-810/19: Order of the President of the Court of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Flightright GmbH v Qatar Airways
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, international transport, reservation, traveller








C_2020414EN.01002503.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/25






Order of the President of the Court of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Flightright GmbH v Qatar Airways
(Case C-810/19) (1)

(2020/C 414/38)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006 (Official Journal of the European Union L 312 of 7 December 2018)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Schengen Information System, border control, data collection, data protection, exchange of information, external border of the EU, foreign national, personal data, removal








L_2020288EN.01002901.xml










3.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 288/29







Corrigendum to Regulation (EU) 2018/1861 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of border checks, and amending the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement, and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1987/2006

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 312 of 7 December 2018
)


On page 42, in Article 45(7):
for:







‘7.


misuse of data, Member States, Europol and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency shall ensure that penalties are imposed in accordance with Article 59’,





read:







‘7.


Where a security incident is caused by the misuse of data, Member States, Europol and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency shall ensure that penalties are imposed in accordance with Article 59.’.
Case T-551/20: Action brought on 3 September 2020 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Rivella International (Riviva)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020359EN.01001301.xml










26.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/13






Action brought on 3 September 2020 — Jeronimo Martins Polska v EUIPO — Rivella International (Riviva)
(Case T-551/20)
(2020/C 359/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. (Kostrzyn, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Riviva — Application for registration No 16 888 174

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2020 in Case R 2420/2019-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, and in case the other party before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 47(2) 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.
Joined Cases C-503/19 and C-592/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 5 de Barcelona — Spain) — UQ (C-503/19), SI (C-592/19) v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona (References for a preliminary ruling — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Directive 2003/109/EC — Article 6(1) — Elements to be taken into consideration — National rules — Failure to take those elements into consideration — Refusal to grant long-term resident status on the ground that the person concerned has previous convictions)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal record, foreign national, public safety, residence permit








C_2020378EN.01001301.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/13






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 5 de Barcelona — Spain) — UQ (C-503/19), SI (C-592/19) v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona
(Joined Cases C-503/19 and C-592/19) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Directive 2003/109/EC - Article 6(1) - Elements to be taken into consideration - National rules - Failure to take those elements into consideration - Refusal to grant long-term resident status on the ground that the person concerned has previous convictions)
(2020/C 378/15)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 17 de Barcelona, Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo No 5 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: UQ (C-503/19), SI (C-592/19)

Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State as it is interpreted by some of the courts of that State, which provides that a third- country national may be refused long-term resident status for the sole reason that he or she has previous criminal convictions, without a specific assessment of his or her situation, in particular, the nature of the offence committed by that national, the threat he or she may pose to public policy or public security, the length of his or her residence on the territory of that Member State and the links he or she has with that State.


(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Case C-530/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH v ON (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Articles 5 and 9 — Obligation of the air carrier to offer hotel accommodation to passengers whose flights have been cancelled — Damage suffered by a passenger during her stay at the hotel providing the accommodation — Possibility of invoking the liability of the air carrier as a result of negligence on the part of employees of the hotel)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, civil liability, damage, hotel profession, indemnification, trauma








C_2020378EN.01001302.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH v ON
(Case C-530/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Articles 5 and 9 - Obligation of the air carrier to offer hotel accommodation to passengers whose flights have been cancelled - Damage suffered by a passenger during her stay at the hotel providing the accommodation - Possibility of invoking the liability of the air carrier as a result of negligence on the part of employees of the hotel)
(2020/C 378/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NM, acting as liquidator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH

Defendant: ON

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 9(1)(b) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation of the air carrier under that provision to offer hotel accommodation free of charge to the passengers referred to therein does not mean that that carrier is required to take care of the accommodation arrangements as such.










2.


Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier which, under Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation, has offered hotel accommodation to a passenger whose flight has been cancelled cannot be required, on the basis of that regulation alone, to compensate that passenger for damage caused by fault on the part of employees of that hotel.






(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.
Case T-555/20: Action brought on 3 September 2020 — QB v ECB
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, indemnification, staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020359EN.01001401.xml










26.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/14






Action brought on 3 September 2020 — QB v ECB
(Case T-555/20)
(2020/C 359/19)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: QB (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded;




consequently:






—


annul the staff report for 2015, drawn up on 8 October 2019;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 7 February 2020 and 24 June 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative appeal and complaint respectively;










—


order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 15 000;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU and of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports, in particular in so far as there was no new appraisal in relation to the applicant, but simply a copy and paste of the appraisal in the initial staff report.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports and of the procedure, and infringement of the duty of care, in particular in so far as the applicant’s staff report does not identify any suggestions for improvement and does not set objectives in the manner required by the General Instructions on the preparation of staff reports.




Third plea in law, alleging that the contested staff report is vitiated by a manifest error in the assessment of the facts in that report.
Case C-137/20: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — MV v SATA International — Serviços e Transportes Aéreos SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory framework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2020414EN.01002002.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/20






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores — Portugal) — MV v SATA International — Serviços e Transportes Aéreos SA
(Case C-137/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Lack of sufficient details concerning the factual and regulatory framework of the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2020/C 414/26)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MV

Defendant: SATA International — Serviços e Transportes Aéreos SA

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca dos Açores (Azores District Court, Portugal), by decision of 10 January 2020, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 209, 22.6.2020.