do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-537/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 October 2020 — L Fund v Finanzamt D
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: corporation tax, foreign enterprise, foreign investment, investment company, nationality of legal persons, property leasing, rental business, tax exemption








C_2021019EN.01002101.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 October 2020 — L Fund v Finanzamt D
(Case C-537/20)
(2021/C 19/27)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: L Fund

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Finanzamt D

Other party to the proceedings: Bundesministerium der Finanzen (Germany)

Question referred

Does Article 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now: Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) conflict with a rule in a Member State, by virtue of which domestic specialised property funds with exclusively foreign investors are exempt from corporate income tax, while foreign specialised property funds with exclusively foreign investors are subject to limited liability for corporate income tax on their rental income obtained within the Member State?
Case C-720/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — GR v Stadt Duisburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 — Article 7, first paragraph — Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker legally employed in a Member State — Naturalisation of the family member concerned in the host Member State — Maintenance of the right of residence — Acquired rights)
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), family migration, migrant worker, nationality, residence permit








C_2020423EN.01001302.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/13






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — GR v Stadt Duisburg
(Case C-720/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 - Article 7, first paragraph - Right of residence of family members of a Turkish worker legally employed in a Member State - Naturalisation of the family member concerned in the host Member State - Maintenance of the right of residence - Acquired rights)
(2020/C 423/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GR

Defendant: Stadt Duisburg

Operative part of the judgment

The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as meaning that a member of the family of a Turkish worker who has acquired the rights laid down under that provision shall not lose the benefit of those rights when he or she acquires the nationality of the host Member State while losing his or her previous nationality.


(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Case T-634/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — UPTR v Parliament and Council
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: carrier, freedom to provide services, liberalisation of the market, principle of proportionality, road cabotage, transport policy, transport regulations








C_2020443EN.01002401.xml










21.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 443/24






Action brought on 21 October 2020 — UPTR v Parliament and Council
(Case T-634/20)
(2020/C 443/28)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Unie van Professionele Transporteurs en Logistieke Ondernemers (Herstal, Belgium) (represented by: F. Vanden Bogaerde, lawyer)

Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


declare the application for annulment admissible;










—


annul Article 2(4) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1055 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2020 amending Regulations (EC) No 1071/2009, (EC) No 1072/2009 and (EU) No 1024/2012 with a view to adapting them to developments in the road transport sector;










—


reserve 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 provision infringes Article 3(3) TEU and the principle of the free movement of services.
In the field of road transport, and more specifically cabotage, efforts toward progressive liberalisation should be made. By the contested provision of Regulation 2020/1055, the level of liberalisation already achieved is scaled back given that that provision contains a far-reaching restriction which is especially disadvantageous to those carriers that are members of the applicant. The aim of preventing abuse in cabotage, which serves as the basis for the contested provision, is already covered by other EU legislative measures (Mobility Package).










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.
Prior to the adoption of the regulation containing the contested provision, there was no updating of the impact assessment conducted in respect of the Commission proposal for that regulation. The European Parliament and the Council, however, made significant amendments to the Commission’s proposal and it was therefore appropriate and necessary to update that impact assessment.
Case C-533/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 21 October 2020 — Upfield Hungary Kft. v Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, foodstuff, labelling, vitamin








C_2021028EN.01002102.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 21 October 2020 — Upfield Hungary Kft. v Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal
(Case C-533/20)
(2021/C 28/33)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Upfield Hungary Kft.

Defendant: Somogy Megyei Kormányhivatal

Question referred

Must the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (1) on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, and specifically Article 18(2) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, where vitamins are added to foods, the list of the ingredients of the food must include not only the names of the vitamins, but also their designation in accordance with the vitamin formulations which may be added to foods?


(1)  OJ 2011 L 304, p. 18.
Case C-564/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 21 October 2020 — PF, MF v Minister for Agriculture Food and the Marine, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: authorised catch, disclosure of information, exchange of information, fishing controls, fishing licence, fishing permit, fishing rights, fishing vessel








C_2021019EN.01004301.xml










18.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/43






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court (Ireland) made on 21 October 2020 — PF, MF v Minister for Agriculture Food and the Marine, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority
(Case C-564/20)
(2021/C 19/44)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: PF, MF

Respondents: Minister for Agriculture Food and the Marine, Sea Fisheries Protection Authority

Questions referred







1.


Is the Single Control Authority in a Member State in notifying and certifying to the European Commission under Article 33(2)(a) and Article 34 of the Control Regulation (1) limited to notifying the data as to catch in a particular fishing ground logged by fishers under Articles 14 and 15 of the Regulation when the Single Control Authority for good reason believes the logged data to be grossly unreliable or is it entitled to employ reasonable, scientifically valid methods to treat and certify the logged data so as to achieve more accurate outtake figures for notification to the European Commission?










2.


Where the Authority is so satisfied, based on reasonable grounds, can it lawfully utilise other data flows such as fishing licenses, fishing authorisations, vessel monitoring system data, landing declarations, sales notes and transport documents?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy, amending Regulations (EC) No 847/96, (EC) No 2371/2002, (EC) No 811/2004, (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 2115/2005, (EC) No 2166/2005, (EC) No 388/2006, (EC) No 509/2007, (EC) No 676/2007, (EC) No 1098/2007, (EC) No 1300/2008, (EC) No 1342/2008 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1627/94 and (EC) No 1966/2006 (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 1).
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 20 October 2020 2020/C 351/06
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020351EN.01000601.xml










21.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

20 October 2020
(2020/C 351/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1810 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,79 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4425 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,91329 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3805 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0724 




ISK


Iceland króna


164,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,9698 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


27,233 




HUF


Hungarian forint


365,68 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5809 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8761 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,3301 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6801 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5577 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1528 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,8006 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6036 




KRW


South Korean won


1 346,35 




ZAR


South African rand


19,5245 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8918 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5826 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 373,10 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9017 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,333 




RUB


Russian rouble


92,0238 




THB


Thai baht


36,965 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6182 




MXN


Mexican peso


25,0315 




INR


Indian rupee


86,8465 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-636/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA)
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aesthetic surgery, medical device, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020443EN.01002601.xml










21.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 443/26






Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLUMA)
(Case T-636/20)
(2020/C 443/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark JUVÉDERM VOLUMA –European Union trade mark No 6 547 301

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 August 2020 in Case R 1016/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 101(4), 104, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-529/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam — Germany) — Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG v ML (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2011/83/EU — Article 16(c) — Right of withdrawal — Exceptions — Goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised — Goods which the trader has begun to produce)
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, distance selling, termination of a contract








C_2020423EN.01000902.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/9






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Potsdam — Germany) — Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG v ML
(Case C-529/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2011/83/EU - Article 16(c) - Right of withdrawal - Exceptions - Goods made to the consumer’s specifications or clearly personalised - Goods which the trader has begun to produce)
(2020/C 423/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Potsdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Möbel Kraft GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: ML

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(c) of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the exception to the right of withdrawal laid down in that provision may be relied on against a consumer who has concluded an off-premises contract for the sale of goods which are to be made to his or her specifications, irrespective of whether the trader has begun to produce those goods.


(1)  OJ C 348, 14.11.2019.
Case T-637/20: Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLITE)
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aesthetic surgery, medical device, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020443EN.01002602.xml










21.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 443/26






Action brought on 21 October 2020 — Dermavita Company v EUIPO — Allergan Holdings France (JUVÉDERM VOLITE)
(Case T-637/20)
(2020/C 443/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Dermavita Company SARL (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark JUVÉDERM VOLITE –European Union trade mark No 13 413 406

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 August 2020 in Case R 1015/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


ask EUIPO to deem the appeal filed;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the Applicant before the General Court.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Articles 101(4), 104, 106 and 107 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1527 of 21 October 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Aceite de Ibiza’/‘Oli d’Eivissa’ (PGI))
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Balearic Islands, Spain, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2020349EN.01000101.xml










21.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 349/1








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1527
of 21 October 2020
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Aceite de Ibiza’/‘Oli d’Eivissa’ (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, Spain’s application to register the name ‘Aceite de Ibiza’/‘Oli d’Eivissa’ 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 ‘Aceite de Ibiza’/‘Oli d’Eivissa’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Aceite de Ibiza’/‘Oli d’Eivissa’ (PGI) is hereby entered in the register.
The name specified in the first paragraph denotes a product in Class 1.5. – Oils and fats (butter, margarine, oil, etc.), 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, 21 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 211, 25.6.2020, p. 28.

(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.9939 — Sampo/RMI/Hastings) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 361/02
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, financial services, holding company, insurance company, investment company, merger control








C_2020361EN.01000201.xml










27.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 361/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9939 — Sampo/RMI/Hastings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 361/02)
On 21 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 32020M9939. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-534/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 October 2020 — Leistritz AG v LH
Date: 2020-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, dismissal, labour relations, personal data








C_2021028EN.01002201.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 October 2020 — Leistritz AG v LH
(Case C-534/20)
(2021/C 28/34)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Leistritz AG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: LH

Questions referred







1.


Is the second sentence of Article 38(3) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/679 (1) (General Data Protection Regulation; GDPR) to be interpreted as precluding a provision in national law, such as Paragraph 38(1) and (2) in conjunction with the second sentence of Paragraph 6(4) of the Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (Federal Law on data protection; ‘the BDSG’), which declares ordinary termination of the employment contract of the data protection officer by the data controller, who is his employer, to be impermissible, irrespective of whether his contract is terminated for performing his tasks?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative:










2.


Does the second sentence of Article 38(3) GDPR also preclude such a provision in national law if the designation of the data protection officer is not mandatory in accordance with Article 37(1) GDPR, but is mandatory only in accordance with the law of the Member State?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative:










3.


Is the second sentence of Article 38(3) GDPR based on a sufficient enabling clause, in particular in so far as this covers data protection officers that are party to an employment contract with the data controller?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).