do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-81/20: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Klose v EUIPO (Representation of three coloured segments in a rectangle) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing three coloured segments in a rectangle — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, equidae, furniture industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020378EN.01003302.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/33






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Klose v EUIPO (Representation of three coloured segments in a rectangle)
(Case T-81/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing three coloured segments in a rectangle - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 378/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Anne-Marie Klose (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: I. Seher, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO (represented by: A. Söder, agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 December 2019 (Case R 1955/2019-2), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing three coloured segments in a rectangle as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Anne-Marie Klose to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Trygderetten in the case of O v Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet (Case E-13/20) 2021/C 15/05
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, free movement of persons, legal domicile, social security legislation, unemployed person, unemployment insurance








C_2021015EN.01000501.xml










14.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 15/5






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Trygderetten in the case of O v Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet
(Case E-13/20)
(2021/C 15/05)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 9 September 2020 from Trygderetten (National Insurance Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 10 September 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of O v Arbeids- og velferdsdirektoratet on the following questions:






(1)


Is it compatible with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, including Article 5(b), for entitlement to a cash benefit in the event of unemployment to be subject to the condition that the unemployed person stay in the competent State in cases where Articles 64, 65 or 65a are not applicable?










(2)


Does Article 36 of the EEA Agreement apply in the case of temporary stays in another EEA State as described in this case?










(3)


Does a condition as described in question 1 constitute a restriction on the right of free movement under Article 31 or Article 36 of the EEA Agreement?










(4)


If so, can the restriction be justified on the ground that:






—


a stay in the competent State provides the unemployed person with better incentive and opportunities for seeking and finding employment?










—


a stay in the competent State ensures that the unemployed person is available for the employment services, so that they (the employment services) are able to monitor whether the unemployed person fulfils the requirements for the unemployment benefit?










—


a stay in the competent State provides the employment services with better opportunities in assessing whether the unemployed person is being followed up in a suitable manner?










—


the requirement of a stay ensures the economic equilibrium of the social security scheme?














(5)


If the condition can be justified, is it compatible with Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement that a person who has had a stay in another EEA State than the competent State without complying with the obligation to inform the competent institution about the stay may be ordered to repay the benefit, which was thus received unlawfully under national law? If so, is it compatible with Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement for an interest surcharge of 10 per cent to be levied on the person concerned?










(6)


If question 3 is answered in the negative, does Article 4, 6 or 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC apply in a situation where an unemployed person has a temporary stay in another EEA State? If Article 4, 6 or 7 applies and may be relied on as against the home State, the same questions as in questions 3 to 5 are put in as far as applicable.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9669 – PPF Group/Central European Media Enterprises) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 299/10
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: culture industry, economic concentration, investment company, mass media, merger control, multinational enterprise








C_2020299EN.01001101.xml










9.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 299/11






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9669 – PPF Group/Central European Media Enterprises)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 299/10)

1.   
On 1 September 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:






—


PPF Group N.V. (‘PPF’, the Netherlands), ultimately controlled by Mr Petr Kellner,










—


Central European Media Enterprises Ltd. (‘CME’, Bermuda), ultimately controlled by AT&T Inc.




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


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


PPF: multinational finance and investment group focusing on financial services, consumer finance, telecommunications, biotechnology, retail services, real estate and agriculture,










—


CME: media and entertainment company, which, through its subsidiaries, is active in TV broadcasting and other media sectors, primarily in Bulgaria, Czechia, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.






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.



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.9669 – PPF Group/Central European Media Enterprises
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’).
Case T-563/20: Action brought on 9 September 2020 — Satabank v ECB
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: banking supervision, credit institution, fight against crime, financial requirements, money laundering, terrorism financing, trade licence








C_2020423EN.01003801.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/38






Action brought on 9 September 2020 — Satabank v ECB
(Case T-563/20)
(2020/C 423/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Satabank plc (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the ECB of 30 June 2020 by which it revoked the applicant’s authorisation as a credit institution;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is fundamentally vitiated by the preceding measures of the ECB and of the Maltese Financial Services Authority (MFSA) and the ECB’s failure to deal with them appropriately in the contested decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by defects in connection with the alleged non-compliance on which it is based.






—


It is argued, as regards the alleged anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing (AML/CFT) issues, that the contested decision does not specify any current non-compliance with AML/CFT rules and that the ECB does not specify any determination by the competent AML/CFT authorities that the applicant breached AML/CFT provisions at the time of the contested decision,










—


The applicant also alleges that the contested decision is vitiated by defects in connection with the alleged non-compliance with regulatory capital requirements. In this regard, the applicant argues that the contested decision is merely describing the consequences of the MFSA’s, and therefore indirectly the ECB’s, own actions.
Case T-46/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Greece v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Area-related aid scheme — Definition of ‘permanent grasslands’ — Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 — Integrated administration and control system — Key controls — Regulation No 1306/2013 — Duty to state reasons)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid per hectare, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, grassland, reimbursement of aid, single payment scheme








C_2020378EN.01002801.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/28






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Greece v Commission
(Case T-46/19) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Area-related aid scheme - Definition of ‘permanent grasslands’ - Article 4(1)(h) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 - Integrated administration and control system - Key controls - Regulation No 1306/2013 - Duty to state reasons)
(2020/C 378/33)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, J. Aquilina and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2018, L 298, p. 34) to the extent that it concerns the expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1841 of 16 November 2018 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) is annulled to the extent that it imposes on the Hellenic Republic a flat rate correction of 2 % on Decoupled Direct Aids; in an amount of EUR 12 342 563.07 for the 2016 financial year and EUR 12 060 283.13 for the 2017 financial year.










2.


The action is dismissed for the remainder.










3.


The European Commission and the Hellenic Republic shall bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Case T-745/17: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kerkosand v Commission (State aid — Aid for an investment project in western Slovakia — Regional investment aid — Rejection of a complaint — Decision not to raise any objections — Conditions for exemption — Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 — Scope of the Commission’s supervisory power — Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 — Concept of SME — Article 3(2) and (3) of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 — Data used for the staff headcount and the financial amounts and reference period — Article 4 of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 — Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market — Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 — Serious difficulties)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Slovakia, State aid, control of State aid, eligibility criteria, glass industry, regional aid, small and medium-sized enterprises








C_2020378EN.01002601.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/26






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Kerkosand v Commission
(Case T-745/17) (1)

(State aid - Aid for an investment project in western Slovakia - Regional investment aid - Rejection of a complaint - Decision not to raise any objections - Conditions for exemption - Article 14 of Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 - Scope of the Commission’s supervisory power - Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 - Concept of SME - Article 3(2) and (3) of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 - Data used for the staff headcount and the financial amounts and reference period - Article 4 of Annex I to Regulation No 651/2014 - Doubts as to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market - Article 4(4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 - Serious difficulties)
(2020/C 378/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Kerkosand spol. s r. o. (Šajdíkove Humence, Slovakia) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and C. Holtmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck and A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia) (JO 2017, C 336, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 5050 final of 20 July 2017 concerning investment aid to the Slovak glass sand producer NAJPI a. s. (SA.38121 (2016/FC) — Slovakia);










2.


Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.
Case T-879/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials — Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL — Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial, COMPAL essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, beer, confectionery, dietary product, food supplement, non-alcoholic beverage, pharmaceutical product, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020378EN.01003301.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/33






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Sumol + Compal Marcas v EUIPO — Jacob (Dr. Jacob’s essentials)
(Case T-879/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dr. Jacob’s essentials - Earlier international word mark COMPAL ESSENCIAL - Earlier national and international figurative marks FRUTA essencial, COMPAL essencial and Compal FRUTA essencial - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 378/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA (Carnaxide, Portugal) (represented by: A. de Sampaio, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Ludwig Manfred Jacob (Heidesheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 October 2019 (Case R 1025/2019 1), relating to opposition proceedings between Sumol + Compal Marcas and Mr Jacob.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Sumol + Compal Marcas, SA to pay the costs relating to the present action.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Case T-143/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Société générale v ECB (Economic and monetary policy — Prudential supervision of credit institutions — Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments — Tasks entrusted to the ECB — Specific supervision powers of the ECB — Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 — Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital — Absence of individual examination)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank deposit, banking supervision, credit institution, financial supervision, guarantee, payment








C_2020378EN.01002701.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/27






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Société générale v ECB
(Case T-143/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary policy - Prudential supervision of credit institutions - Contribution to the deposit guarantee system or to the single resolution fund by means of irrevocable payment commitments - Tasks entrusted to the ECB - Specific supervision powers of the ECB - Article 4(1)(f) and Article 16(1)(c) and (2)(d) of Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 - Measure requiring the deduction of the cumulative amount of irrevocable payment commitments outstanding from Tier 1 capital - Absence of individual examination)
(2020/C 378/31)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Société générale (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: E. Koupepidou, R. Bax and F. Bonnard, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU for partial annulment, first, of ECB Decision ECB/SSM/2017-O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of 19 December 2017, and, second, of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRSOG-10 of 14 February 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls paragraph 5 of Decision ECB/SSM/2017-O2RNE8IBXP4R0TD8PU41/174 of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 19 December 2017 and Article 3 of Annex A thereto and paragraph 5 of Decision ECB-SSM-2019-FRSOG-10 of the ECB of 14 February 2019 and Article 3 of the annex thereto to the extent that Société génerale is concerned;










2.


Orders the ECB is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Case T-381/15 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Development cooperation — Implementation of the EU budget under indirect management — Decision suspending the applicant’s ability to conclude new delegation agreements for indirect management with the Commission — Unlawfulness — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Application for injunctive relief — Late submission of application — Modification of the nature of the reparation sought — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, audit, contract, damages, development aid, implementation of the budget, international organisation








C_2020414EN.01002901.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/29






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — IMG v Commission
(Case T-381/15 RENV) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Development cooperation - Implementation of the EU budget under indirect management - Decision suspending the applicant’s ability to conclude new delegation agreements for indirect management with the Commission - Unlawfulness - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Application for injunctive relief - Late submission of application - Modification of the nature of the reparation sought - Inadmissibility)
(2020/C 414/47)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and J.-Y. de Cara, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and J. Norris, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the Commission’s decision, in its letter of 8 May 2015, not to conclude new delegation agreements for indirect management with the applicant ‘until there was absolute certainty regarding [its] status as an international organisation’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action for damages;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs in respect of the proceedings before the General Court.






(1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.
Case T-626/19: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Loch- und Rissfüller) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark SOS Loch- und Rissfüller — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-09-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, special chemicals, trade-mark law








C_2020399EN.01003501.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/35






Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2020 — Daw v EUIPO (SOS Loch- und Rissfüller)
(Case T-626/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark SOS Loch- und Rissfüller - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 399/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Daw SE (Ober-Ramstadt, Germany) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 (Case R 278/2019-4), relating to an application for registration of the word sign SOS Loch- und Rissfüller as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Daw SE to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.