do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-427/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2020 — Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Kiel
Date: 2020-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs duties, import levy, infringement of EU law, interest








C_2020414EN.01002301.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 414/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 10 September 2020 — Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Kiel
(Case C-427/20)
(2020/C 414/32)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Flexi Montagetechnik GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel

Question referred

Is there an infringement of EU law, which is a condition for entitlement to interest under EU law as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, where a Member State authority imposes a duty in breach of legally valid provisions of EU law and a Member State court makes a finding of that infringement of EU law?
Case C-426/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos (Portugal) lodged on 10 September 2020 — GD, ES v Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário, S. A.
Date: 2020-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bonus payment, equal treatment, paid leave, seniority, temporary employment, temporary employment agency, wage earner, working conditions








C_2020423EN.01002702.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos (Portugal) lodged on 10 September 2020 — GD, ES v Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário, S. A.
(Case C-426/20)
(2020/C 423/41)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Braga — Juízo do Trabalho de Barcelos

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: GD, ES

Defendant: Luso Temp — Empresa de Trabalho Temporário, S. A.

Question referred

Do Article 3(1)(f) and Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/104/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work preclude a provision of law such as that in Article 185(6) of the Código do Trabalho (Employment Code) (adopted by Law No 7/2009 of 12 February [2009]), under which temporary agency workers are, in all cases, entitled to paid holiday and the corresponding holiday bonus pay only pro rata to the period of service in the user undertaking, even where their employment relationship commences in one calendar year and ends two or more calendar years later, whereas a worker recruited directly by the user undertaking who occupies the same job for the same period of time will be subject to the general holiday provisions, meaning that he or she will be entitled to a longer period of paid holiday and more holiday bonus pay, since these are not pro rata to the period of service?


(1)  OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9.
Case C-386/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Hamas v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Conditions — Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority — Sentencing decision — Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2020-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, right to justice, rights of the defence, terrorism, trade restriction








C_2020390EN.01001102.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/11






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Hamas v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-386/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority - Sentencing decision - Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)
(2020/C 390/15)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and S. Van Overmiere, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Baumgart, J. Roberti di Sarsina, C. Zadra and A. Tizzano, subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Baumgart and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


The appeal is dismissed;










2.


Hamas shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
Case C-122/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Hamas v Council of the European Union, French Republic, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Fight against terrorism — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Conditions — Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority — Sentencing decision — Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2020-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, right to justice, terrorism








C_2020390EN.01000801.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/8






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Hamas v Council of the European Union, French Republic, European Commission
(Case C-122/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Fight against terrorism - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities - Freezing of funds - Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Article 1(4) and (6) - Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 - Article 2(3) - Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts - Conditions - Competent authority equivalent to a judicial authority - Sentencing decision - Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection)
(2020/C 390/10)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and K. Pavlaki, acting as Agents), French Republic, European Commission (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Bouquet, J. Roberti di Sarsina, C. Zadra and A. Tizzano, subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Bouquet and J. Roberti di Sarsina, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


The appeal is dismissed;










2.


Hamas shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 131, 8.4.2019.
Case C-498/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Romania v European Commission (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Decision of the European Commission excluding expenditure from EU financing — Notification to the addressee — Error in the printing of the annex — Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union — Time limit for filing appeal — Point from which time starts to run — Lateness — Principle of legal certainty — Observance of the adversarial principle)
Date: 2020-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EU Official Journal, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, limitation of legal proceedings, principle of legal certainty








C_2020390EN.01001301.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/13






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 — Romania v European Commission
(Case C-498/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Decision of the European Commission excluding expenditure from EU financing - Notification to the addressee - Error in the printing of the annex - Publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union - Time limit for filing appeal - Point from which time starts to run - Lateness - Principle of legal certainty - Observance of the adversarial principle)
(2020/C 390/17)
Language of the case: Romanian

Parties


Applicant: Romania (represented initially by C.-R Canţăr, E. Gane O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, subsequently by E. Gane, O.-C. Ichim and M. Chicu, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Romania to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Case T-564/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)
Date: 2020-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, peripheral








C_2020378EN.01003901.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/39






Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)
(Case T-564/20)
(2020/C 378/49)
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, États-Unis)

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 1 253 876-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 in Case R 296/2020-3

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.
Case T-565/20: Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)
Date: 2020-09-10
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, peripheral








C_2020378EN.01003902.xml










9.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 378/39






Action brought on 10 September 2020 — TrekStor v EUIPO — Zagg (Protective covers for computer hardware)
(Case T-565/20)
(2020/C 378/50)
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, États-Unis)

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 1 253 876-0003

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2020 in Case R 297/2020-3

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.
Case C-509/19: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v Hauptzollamt München (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs Union — Union Customs Code — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Article 71(1)(b) — Customs value — Imports of electronic products equipped with software)
Date: 2020-09-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs valuation, economic value, electronic device, import (EU), motor vehicle industry, software, vehicle parts








C_2020390EN.01001302.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/13






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München — Germany) — BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v Hauptzollamt München
(Case C-509/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs Union - Union Customs Code - Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 - Article 71(1)(b) - Customs value - Imports of electronic products equipped with software)
(2020/C 390/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Operative part of the judgment

Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of determining the customs value of imported goods, the economic value of software designed in the European Union and made available free of charge by the buyer to the seller established in a third country to be added to the transaction value of imported goods.


(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.