do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-338/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — UE v Commission (Civil service — Temporary members of staff — Health problems alleged to have been caused by working conditions — Request for recognition of an occupational disease — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Right to be heard — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Obligation for the person concerned to be heard before the original decision)
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: occupational disease, rights of the defence, servant (EU), temporary employment








C_2020390EN.01003101.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/31






Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — UE v Commission
(Case T-338/19) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary members of staff - Health problems alleged to have been caused by working conditions - Request for recognition of an occupational disease - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Right to be heard - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Obligation for the person concerned to be heard before the original decision)
(2020/C 390/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: UE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of the Commission, of 1 August 2018, by which the applicant’s request for recognition of an occupational disease, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, was dismissed as inadmissible.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Office for administration and payment of individual entitlements (PMO) of the European Commission, of 1 August 2018, by which the request by UE for recognition of an occupational disease, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, was dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Case C-451/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, carrier, civil aviation, indemnification, reservation, transport regulations, traveller








C_2020433EN.01002501.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) lodged on 23 September 2020 — Airhelp Limited v Austrian Airlines AG
(Case C-451/20)
(2020/C 433/31)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Korneuburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Airhelp Limited

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that regulation also applies to an air route booked under a single booking but consisting of two flights, both of which are operated by (the same) Community air carrier, if both the place of departure of the first flight and place of arrival of the second flight are in a third country and only the place of arrival of the first flight and the place of departure of the second flight are in the territory of a Member State?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:










2.


Must Article 5(1)(c)(iii) of Regulation No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that a passenger is entitled to compensation under Article 7(1) of that Regulation even if, on the alternative flight offered to him, his scheduled arrival time at the final destination would have been less than two hours after the scheduled arrival time of the cancelled flight, but he does not actually arrive within that time?






(1)  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 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).
Case T-869/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Tetra v EUIPO — Neusta next (Wave) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Wave — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020390EN.01003701.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/37






Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Tetra v EUIPO — Neusta next (Wave)
(Case T-869/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Wave - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2020/C 390/53)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Tetra GmbH (Melle, Germany) (represented by: E. Kessler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Neusta next GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 October 2019 (Case R 2440/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Neusta next and Tetra.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 October 2019 (Case R 2440/2018-2);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Case C-452/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2020 — PJ v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, precautionary principle, principle of proportionality, sale, smoking, supply, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2020423EN.01002901.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/29






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2020 — PJ v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
(Case C-452/20)
(2020/C 423/43)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: PJ

Respondents: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

Question referred

Does the second paragraph of Article 25 of regio decreto 24 dicembre 1934, n. 2316 (Royal Decree No 2316 of 24 December 1934), as replaced by Article 24(3) of decreto legislativo n. 6 del 2016 (Legislative Decree No 6 of 2016) (transposing Directive 2014/40/EU (1) on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC) — inasmuch as it provides that ‘anyone who sells or supplies tobacco products or electronic cigarettes or refill containers containing nicotine or novel tobacco products to minors under the age of 18 shall be liable to a financial administrative penalty of EUR 500 to EUR 3 000 and a 15-day trading licence suspension’ — infringe the EU principle of proportionality and the precautionary principle, as set out in Article 5 TEU, in Article 23(3) of Directive 2014/40, and in recitals 21 and 60 of that directive, by giving precedence to the precautionary principle without mitigating it with the principle of proportionality, and thus disproportionately sacrificing the interests of economic operators to the protection of the right to health, thereby failing to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the different fundamental rights and, what is more, doing so by means of a penalty that, contrary to recital 8 of the directive, does not effectively pursue the objective of discouraging smoking prevalence among young people?


(1)  OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9902 — HPS/Temasek/Cypress Creek Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 327/01
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, solar energy








C_2020327EN.01000101.xml










5.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 327/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9902 — HPS/Temasek/Cypress Creek Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 327/01)
On 23 September 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 32020M9902. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-411/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB (Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Essential procedural requirements — Authentication of the decision — Obligation to state reasons — Right to effective judicial protection — Plea of illegality — Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: company in difficulties, equal treatment, financial instrument, financial legislation, financing plan, fund (EU), principle of proportionality, right of establishment, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020390EN.01002601.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/26






Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Landesbank Baden-Württemberg v SRB
(Case T-411/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Obligation to state reasons - Right to effective judicial protection - Plea of illegality - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)
(2020/C 390/36)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Landesbank Baden-Württemberg (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: H. Berger and K. Rübsamen, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, S. Raes, T. Van Dyck and A. Kopp, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the decision of the Executive Session of the SRB of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Executive Session of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns Landesbank Baden-Württemberg;










2.


Maintains the effects of Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05, in so far as it concerns Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, for six months from the day on which the present judgment becomes final;










3.


Orders the SRB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Landesbank Baden-Württemberg;










4.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Case T-421/18: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Bauer Radio v EUIPO — Weinstein (MUSIKISS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MUSIKISS — Earlier United Kingdom word and figurative marks KISS — Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom — Transition period — Decision of the Board of Appeal to remit the case to the Opposition Division — Admissibility — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, cultural event, employment service, human relations, music, registered trade mark, social media, social services, trade-mark law








C_2020399EN.01002802.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/28






Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Bauer Radio v EUIPO — Weinstein (MUSIKISS)
(Case T-421/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MUSIKISS - Earlier United Kingdom word and figurative marks KISS - Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Euratom - Transition period - Decision of the Board of Appeal to remit the case to the Opposition Division - Admissibility - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2020/C 399/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bauer Radio Ltd (Peterborough, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Messenger, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Simon Weinstein (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: M.-R. Petsche and M. Grötschl, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2018 (Case R 510/2017-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Bauer Radio and Mr Weinstein.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Bauer Radio Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 294, 20.8.2018.
Case T-601/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Osório & Gonçalves v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (in.fi.ni.tu.de) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative EU trade mark in.fi.ni.tu.de — Earlier national word mark INFINITE — Admissibility of evidence — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Proof of genuine use — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020399EN.01003302.xml










23.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/33






Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Osório & Gonçalves v EUIPO — Miguel Torres (in.fi.ni.tu.de)
(Case T-601/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative EU trade mark in.fi.ni.tu.de - Earlier national word mark INFINITE - Admissibility of evidence - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) and Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Proof of genuine use - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 399/48)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Osório & Gonçalves, SA (Galamares, Portugal) (represented by: D. Araújo e Sá Serras Pereira, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 July 2019 (Case R 1579/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Miguel Torres and Osório & Gonçalves.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Osório & Gonçalves, SA, to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.
Case T-414/17: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB (Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions — Action for annulment — Direct and individual concern — Admissibility — Essential procedural requirements — Authentication of the decision — Obligation to state reasons — Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, company in difficulties, credit institution, financial instrument, financial legislation, financing plan, fund (EU), right to justice








C_2020390EN.01002701.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/27






Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Hypo Vorarlberg Bank v SRB
(Case T-414/17) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single Resolution Mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Decision of the SRB on the calculation of the 2017 ex ante contributions - Action for annulment - Direct and individual concern - Admissibility - Essential procedural requirements - Authentication of the decision - Obligation to state reasons - Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment)
(2020/C 390/37)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG, formerly Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger and A. Brenneis, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: P. Messina and J. Kerlin, acting as Agents, and B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


annuls the decision of the Single Resolution Board (SRB) in its executive session of 11 April 2017 on the calculation of the 2017 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2017/05), in so far as it concerns Hypo Vorarlberg Bank AG;










2.


orders the SRB to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hypo Vorarlberg Bank.






(1)  OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.
Case T-292/19: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Pshonka v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources — Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list — Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2020-09-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Ukraine, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020390EN.01003001.xml










16.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 390/30






Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Pshonka v Council
(Case T-292/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)
(2020/C 390/42)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by R. Pekař and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Artem Viktorovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;










2.


Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.