do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-48/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark smart:)things — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, electronic device, furniture industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2020433EN.01004401.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/44






Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)
(Case T-48/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark smart:)things - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 59(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2020/C 433/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: smart things solutions GmbH (Seefeld, Germany) (represented by: R. Dissmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, 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: Samsung Electronics GmbH (Schwalbach/Taunus, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmitz, M. Breuer and I. Dimitrov, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 (Case R 835/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Samsung Electronics and smart things solutions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders smart things solutions GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Samsung Electronics GmbH.






(1)  OJ C 103, 18.3.2019.
Case T-249/19: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 –Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission (Civil service — Members of the contract staff — Remuneration — Decision refusing entitlement to the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and to reimbursement of removal expenses and travel costs on taking up duties — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Diplomatic status — Five-year reference period — Concept of ‘habitual residence’)
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: allowances and expenses, diplomatic profession, expatriate worker, residence, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2020433EN.01004501.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/45






Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 –Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission
(Case T-249/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the contract staff - Remuneration - Decision refusing entitlement to the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and to reimbursement of removal expenses and travel costs on taking up duties - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Diplomatic status - Five-year reference period - Concept of ‘habitual residence’)
(2020/C 433/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova (Woluwe-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission decision of 14 June 2018 refusing the applicant entitlement to the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance and to reimbursement of travel costs on taking up duties and of removal expenses.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 14 October 2020 2020/C 343/10
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020343EN.01001401.xml










15.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/14






Euro exchange rates (1)

14 October 2020
(2020/C 343/10)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1750 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,70 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4439 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90395 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3653 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0738 




ISK


Iceland króna


163,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,8218 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,313 




HUF


Hungarian forint


363,49 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5073 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8738 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,3334 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6378 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5432 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1063 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7633 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5947 




KRW


South Korean won


1 346,70 




ZAR


South African rand


19,3897 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9092 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5785 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 311,28 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8768 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,244 




RUB


Russian rouble


90,9325 




THB


Thai baht


36,648 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5426 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,1075 




INR


Indian rupee


86,0995 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-629/20: Action brought on 15 October 2020 — Delifruit v Commission
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: consumer protection, crop production, food inspection, food safety, foodstuff, pesticide, pesticide residue, toxic substance








C_2020433EN.01006101.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/61






Action brought on 15 October 2020 — Delifruit v Commission
(Case T-629/20)
(2020/C 433/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Delifruit, SA (Guayaquil, Ecuador) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and S. Saez Moreno, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


partially annul the Contested Act, as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085, in so far as it establishes the maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos for bananas at 0,01 mg/kg; and,










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 of 23 July 2020 amending Annexes II and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl in or on certain products (1), as amended by Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1085 (2).
In support of the action, the applicant alleges the Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment by not taking into account a relevant factor (a substantive study disproving one of the alleged reasons for the adoption of the maximum residue limit) in its assessment leading to the adoption of the contested act, and, in so doing, has also infringed Article 14(2) (a) and (f) of Regulation 396/2005 which require that all relevant and available data be taken into account by it.


(1)  OJ 2020 L 239, p. 7


(2)  OJ 2020 L 245, p. 31
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9994 – Alcentra/Brait/New Look Retail Holdings) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 343/16
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, United Kingdom, clothing industry, economic concentration, electronic commerce, holding company, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2020343EN.01002101.xml










15.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 343/21






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9994 – Alcentra/Brait/New Look Retail Holdings)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 343/16)

1.   
On 8 October 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:






—


Alcentra Limited (‘Alcentra’, the United Kingdom),










—


Brait Societas Europaea (‘Brait’, Malta),










—


New Look Retail Holdings Limited (‘New Look’, Jersey).




Alcentra and Brait acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of New Look.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Alcentra: global asset management firm focused on sub-investment grade corporate credit,










—


for Brait: public investment holding company focused on investing in unlisted businesses operating in the broad consumer sector,










—


for New Look: fashion retailer with an online presence and chain of high street shops primarily located in the UK and Ireland.






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.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


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.9994 – Alcentra/Brait/New Look Retail Holdings
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’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1533 of 15 October 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Limone dell’Etna’ (PGI))
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, Sicily, citrus fruit, designation of origin, labelling, product designation








L_2020351EN.01000101.xml










22.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 351/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1533
of 15 October 2020
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Limone dell’Etna’ (PGI))


THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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


Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Italy’s application to register the name ‘Limone dell’Etna’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).












(2)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the name ‘Limone dell’Etna’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Limone dell’Etna’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.6. – Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed, as listed in Annex XI to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 (3).


Article 2
This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth 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, 15 October 2020.


For the Commission,


On behalf of the President,

Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI
            

Member of the Commission






(1)  
            OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ C 204, 18.6.2020, p. 24.

(3)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2014 of 13 June 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 179, 19.6.2014, p. 36).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9966 — EQT/Colisée) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 351/02
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: care for the elderly, economic concentration, home care, investment company, merger control, nursing care, provision of services, social facilities








C_2020351EN.01000201.xml










21.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9966 — EQT/Colisée)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 351/02)
On 15 October 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 32020M9966. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-813/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2020 — Deza, a.s. v European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden, European Chemicals Agency (Appeal — Environment — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures — Regulation (EU) 2017/776 — Classification of anthraquinone — Substance suspected to have carcinogenic potential for humans — Errors of interpretation and application of Regulation 1272/2008 and the principle of legal certainty — Distortion of the facts and of the evidence — Scope of review)
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: application of EU law, carcinogenic substance, classification, interpretation of the law, labelling, organic chemical, packaging, principle of legal certainty








C_2020423EN.01000501.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/5






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2020 — Deza, a.s. v European Commission, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden, European Chemicals Agency
(Case C-813/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Environment - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures - Regulation (EU) 2017/776 - Classification of anthraquinone - Substance suspected to have carcinogenic potential for humans - Errors of interpretation and application of Regulation 1272/2008 and the principle of legal certainty - Distortion of the facts and of the evidence - Scope of review)
(2020/C 423/06)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Appellant: Deza, a.s. (represented by: P. Dejl, advokát)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and Z. Malůšková, acting as Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: S. Hartikainen, acting as Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: H. Eklinder, H. Shev, C. Meyer-Seitz, J. Lundberg and A. Falk and subsequently by: H. Eklinder, H. Shev and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents), European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: A. Hautamäki and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Deza a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Case T-307/18: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals v Commission (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in China — Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty — Rights of the defence — Calculation of the dumping margin — Analogue country — Injury — Causal link)
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, piping, rights of the defence, steel, tube








C_2020443EN.01002001.xml










21.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 443/20






Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2020 — Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals v Commission
(Case T-307/18) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in China - Imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty - Rights of the defence - Calculation of the dumping margin - Analogue country - Injury - Causal link)
(2020/C 443/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd (Huzhou, China) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos and P. Billiet, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Demeneix, M. França, N. Kuplewatzky and E. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/330 of 5 March 2018 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2018 L 63, p. 15), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9941 — Private Theory Luxco/ARC Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 351/04
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: distributive trades, economic concentration, glass industry, household article, investment company, merger control








C_2020351EN.01000401.xml










21.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/4






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9941 — Private Theory Luxco/ARC Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 351/04)
On 15 October 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 32020M9941. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-632/20: Action brought on 15 October 2020 — OG v EDA
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), equal treatment, indemnification, job vacancy, legal expenses, right to justice, transparency in decision-making








C_2021019EN.01005601.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/56






Action brought on 15 October 2020 — OG v EDA
(Case T-632/20)
(2021/C 19/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: OG (represented by: S. Pappas and N. Kyriazopoulou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Defence Agency (EDA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Defence Agency of 13 December 2019, by which the applicant had not been placed on the reserve list of suitable candidates;










—


annul the decision of the Chief Executive of EDA by which the complaint of the applicant against the EDA decision of 13 December 2019 was rejected, to the extent it offers an additional reasoning; and










—


order compensation in the amount of EUR 3 000 (three thousand euros) for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.





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 the essential procedural requirement to state reasons.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of equal treatment, transparency, objectivity and sound administration.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the vacancy notice, illegal or insufficient reasoning and manifest error of assessment vitiating the assessment of the qualifications of the applicant in respect of the post to be filled.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9962 — Mylan/Aspen’s EU Thrombosis business) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 432/02
Date: 2020-10-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, intellectual property, merger control, pharmaceutical industry








C_2020432EN.01000201.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9962 — Mylan/Aspen’s EU Thrombosis business)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 432/02)
On 15 October 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 32020M9962. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.