do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-583/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Electrolux Home Products v EUIPO — D. Consult (FRIGIDAIRE) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark FRIGIDAIRE — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021009EN.01001601.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/16






Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Electrolux Home Products v EUIPO — D. Consult (FRIGIDAIRE)
(Case T-583/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark FRIGIDAIRE - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 9/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (Charlotte, North Carolina, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: D. Consult (Wattignies, France)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2019 (Case R 166/2018-5), relating to revocation proceedings between D. Consult and Electrolux Home Products.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Electrolux Home Products, Inc., to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9940 — AAUK2/MUL/Ballyhoura Wind/CCWFL) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 412/01
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, energy production, financial services, investment company, logistics, merger control, power plant, wind energy








C_2020412EN.01000101.xml










30.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 412/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9940 — AAUK2/MUL/Ballyhoura Wind/CCWFL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 412/01)
On 28 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 32020M9940. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-570/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 October 2020 — BV v Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Haute-Savoie
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, national law, penalty, principle of proportionality, tax offence








C_2021028EN.01002501.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 28 October 2020 — BV v Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Haute-Savoie
(Case C-570/20)
(2021/C 28/39)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: BV

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Direction départementale des finances publiques de la Haute-Savoie

Questions referred







1.


Is the requirement of the clarity and the foreseeability of the circumstances in which concealments in returns relating to VAT payable may be the subject of a duplication of proceedings and penalties of a criminal nature satisfied by national rules such as those described [in the request for a preliminary ruling]?










2.


Is the requirement of the necessity and the proportionality of the duplication of such penalties satisfied by national rules such as those described [in the request for a preliminary ruling]?
Case T-857/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union (Access to documents — Court of Justice of the European Union — Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions — Article 266 TFEU — Decision adopted to give effect to a judgment of the General Court — Measures necessary to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment — Presumption of non-existence or non-possession of documents — Plausible explanations making it possible to determine the reasons for the non-existence or non-possession of documents — Obligation to state reasons — Retention of documentation — Principle of good administration)
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, administrative transparency, member of the Court of Justice (EU), principle of proportionality








C_2021009EN.01001802.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/18






Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union
(Case T-857/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Court of Justice of the European Union - Documents held by an institution in the exercise of its administrative functions - Article 266 TFEU - Decision adopted to give effect to a judgment of the General Court - Measures necessary to give effect to a judgment delivered in an action for annulment - Presumption of non-existence or non-possession of documents - Plausible explanations making it possible to determine the reasons for the non-existence or non-possession of documents - Obligation to state reasons - Retention of documentation - Principle of good administration)
(2021/C 9/27)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Franklin Dehousse (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: J. Inghelram and Á. Almendros Manzano, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14 October 2019 concerning a measure giving effect to the judgment of 20 September 2019, Dehousse v Court of Justice of the European Union (T-433/17, EU:T:2019:632).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Franklin Dehousse to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Case C-611/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Pirelli & C. SpA v European Commission, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for power cables — Market allocation in connection with projects — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Powers of the European Commission in the area of fines — Imputability of the infringement — Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights — Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis — Unlimited jurisdiction)
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, electric cable, market-sharing agreement, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2020433EN.01000602.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/6






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2020 — Pirelli & C. SpA v European Commission, Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl
(Case C-611/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for power cables - Market allocation in connection with projects - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Powers of the European Commission in the area of fines - Imputability of the infringement - Presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights - Beneficium ordinis seu excussionis - Unlimited jurisdiction)
(2020/C 433/05)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: Pirelli & C. SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Rizza, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari, P. Rossi, C. Sjödin and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents), Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl (represented initially by C. Tesauro and L. Armati, avvocati, subsequently by V. Roppo and P. Canepa, avvocati)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Pirelli & C. SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders Prysmian Cavi e Sistemi Srl to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9748 — KKR/Dentix Health Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 362/01
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: dental medicine, economic concentration, investment company, medical institution, merger control








C_2020362EN.01000101.xml










28.10.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 362/1






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.9748 — KKR/Dentix Health Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 362/01)
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004
On 4 February 2020, the European Commission received notification (1) of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) (‘Merger Regulation’).
On 14 February 2020, the notifying party informed the Commission that it withdrew its notification.


(1)  OJ C 48, 12.2.2020, p. 22.

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-563/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2020 — ORLEN KolTrans sp. z o.o v Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, rail safety, rail transport, transport infrastructure








C_2021044EN.01002401.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2020 — ORLEN KolTrans sp. z o.o v Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego
(Case C-563/20)
(2021/C 44/29)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ORLEN KolTrans sp. z o.o

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Transportu Kolejowego

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 30(2)(e) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (1) be interpreted as conferring on a railway undertaking which uses or intends to use railway infrastructure the right to participate in the procedure conducted by a regulatory body for setting the level of charges for access to railway infrastructure by the railway infrastructure manager?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, must Article 30(5) and (6) of Directive 2001/14/EC be interpreted as conferring on a railway undertaking which uses or intends to use railway infrastructure the right to challenge the decision of the regulatory body approving the level of charges for access to railway infrastructure set by the railway infrastructure manager?






(1)  OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.
Case T-273/19: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark TARGET VENTURES — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, consultancy, financial services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021009EN.01001502.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/15






Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Target Ventures Group v EUIPO — Target Partners (TARGET VENTURES)
(Case T-273/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark TARGET VENTURES - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 9/22)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Target Ventures Group Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: T. Dolde and P. Homann, lawyers)

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, intervener before the General Court: Target Partners GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Klett and C. Mikyska, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 (Case R 1684/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Target Ventures Group and Target Partners.

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 February 2019 (Case R 1684/2017-2);










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Target Ventures Group Ltd, including those which the latter party incurred before the Board of Appeal;










3.


Orders Target Partners GmbH to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 220, 1.7.2019.
Case T-594/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Pharma Mar v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Aplidin — plitidepsin — Commission decision refusing authorisation — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 — Scientific evaluation of the risks and benefits of a medicinal product — Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use — Objective impartiality)
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product








C_2021009EN.01001302.xml










11.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/13






Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2020 — Pharma Mar v Commission
(Case T-594/18) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Aplidin — plitidepsin - Commission decision refusing authorisation - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 - Scientific evaluation of the risks and benefits of a medicinal product - Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use - Objective impartiality)
(2021/C 9/19)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pharma Mar, SA (Colmenar Viejo, Spain) (represented by: M. Merola and V. Salvatore, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Haasbeek and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 4831 final of 17 July 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1) for Aplidin — plitidepsin, a medicinal product for human use.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Implementing Decision C(2018) 4831 final of 17 July 2018 refusing marketing authorisation under Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, for Aplidin — plitidepsin, a medicinal product for human use;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 445, 10.12.2018.
Case C-637/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — BY v CX (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Information society — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights — Article 3(1) — Communication to the public — Notion of ‘public’ — Transmission by electronic means to a court of a protected work as evidence in court proceedings)
Date: 2020-10-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, digital evidence, information society








C_2020433EN.01001402.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/14






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen — Sweden) — BY v CX
(Case C-637/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Information society - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights - Article 3(1) - Communication to the public - Notion of ‘public’ - Transmission by electronic means to a court of a protected work as evidence in court proceedings)
(2020/C 433/16)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt — Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BY

Defendant: CX

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘communication to the public’, referred to in that provision, does not cover the transmission by electronic means of a protected work to a court, as evidence in judicial proceedings between individuals.


(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.