do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-874/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Flaming Forties — Earlier national figurative mark 40 FLAMING FRUITS — 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: 2020-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, automatic game, computer equipment, electronic game, game of chance, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021028EN.01004401.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/44






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Impera v EUIPO — Euro Games Technology (Flaming Forties)
(Case T-874/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Flaming Forties - Earlier national figurative mark 40 FLAMING FRUITS - 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))
(2021/C 28/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Impera GmbH (Steinhaus, Austria) (represented by: C. Straberger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: I. Lecheva, J. Crespo Carrillo and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Euro Games Technology Ltd (Vranya-Lozen-Triugulnika, Bulgaria) (represented by: K. Manev, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 October 2019 (Case R 2304/2018-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Euro Games Technology and Impera.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Impera GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 20.4.2020.
Case C-303/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale v VR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/109/EC — Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents — Article 11 — Right to equal treatment — Social security — Legislation of a Member State excluding, for the determination of rights to a family benefit, the family members of a long-term resident who do not reside in the territory of that Member State)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, family, family benefit, foreign national, migrant worker, residence, residence permit








C_2021035EN.01001201.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/12






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale v VR
(Case C-303/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/109/EC - Status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents - Article 11 - Right to equal treatment - Social security - Legislation of a Member State excluding, for the determination of rights to a family benefit, the family members of a long-term resident who do not reside in the territory of that Member State)
(2021/C 35/14)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale

Defendant: VR

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(1)(d) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, for the purposes of determining entitlement to a social security benefit, the family members of a long-term resident, within the meaning of Article 2(b) thereof, who do not reside in the territory of that Member State, but in a third country are not taken into account, whereas the family members of a national of that Member State who reside in a third country are taken into account, where that Member State has not expressed its intention of relying on the derogation to equal treatment permitted by Article 11(2) of that directive by transposing it into national law.


(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1810 of 25 November 2020 approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Figue de Solliès’ (PDO)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, designation of origin, fresh fruit, labelling, pip fruit, processed foodstuff, product designation








L_2020404EN.01000201.xml










2.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 404/2








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/1810
of 25 November 2020
         
approving non-minor amendments to the specification for a name entered in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications ‘Figue de Solliès’ (PDO)


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 the first subparagraph of Article 53(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission has examined France’s application for the approval of amendments to the product specification for the protected designation of origin ‘Figue de Solliès’, registered under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1367/2011 (2).












(2)


Since the amendments in question are not minor within the meaning of Article 53(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, the Commission published the amendment application in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) as required by Article 50(2)(a) of that Regulation.












(3)


As no statement of opposition under Article 51 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 has been received by the Commission, the amendments to the specification should be approved,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The amendments to the product specification published in the Official Journal of the European Union regarding the name ‘Figue de Solliès’ (PDO) are hereby approved.


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, 25 November 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)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1367/2011 of 19 December 2011 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Figue de Solliès (PDO)] (OJ L 341, 22.12.2011, p. 31).

(3)  
            OJ C 257, 5.8.2020, p. 5.
Case T-308/20: Order of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — PL v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Reassignment — Decision with retroactive effect adopted to comply with a judgment of the General Court — Article 266 TFEU — Article 22a of the Staff Regulations — Competent authority — Withdrawal of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, reassignment, retroactivity of a law, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021028EN.01005202.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/52






Order of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — PL v Commission
(Case T-308/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Reassignment - Decision with retroactive effect adopted to comply with a judgment of the General Court - Article 266 TFEU - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Competent authority - Withdrawal of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 28/81)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: PL (represented by: J.-N. Louis and J. Van Rossum, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff, I. Melo Sampaio and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 June 2019 concerning the reassignment of the applicant to the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport with retroactive effect from 1 January 2013.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by PL.






(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.
Case T-362/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — UI v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance — Habitual residence — Place where the person’s main occupation is carried on — Five-year reference period)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, European official, Romania, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, real property, registration of a company, residence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021028EN.01004001.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/40






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — UI v Commission
(Case T-362/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Habitual residence - Place where the person’s main occupation is carried on - Five-year reference period)
(2021/C 28/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: UI (represented by: J. Diaz Cordova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for (i) annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 27 August 2018 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance and (ii) compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders UI to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.
Case C-638/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd (Sweden) lodged on 25 November 2020 — MCM v Centrala studiestödsnämnden
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child of migrant, education grant, financial aid, foreign student, migrant worker, residence, return migration








C_2021053EN.01002501.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd (Sweden) lodged on 25 November 2020 — MCM v Centrala studiestödsnämnden
(Case C-638/20)
(2021/C 53/33)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Överklagandenämnden för studiestöd

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MCM

Defendant: Centrala studiestödsnämnden

Questions referred

May a Member State (the country of origin), in respect of a returning migrant worker’s child, notwithstanding Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation [No] 492/2011, (1) and taking into consideration the budgetary interests of the country of origin, lay down a requirement for the child to have a connection with the country of origin in order to grant that child student financial aid to study abroad in the other EU Member State where the child’s parent previously worked (the host country), where






(i)


after returning from the host country, the child’s parent has lived and worked in the country of origin for at least eight years,










(ii)


the child did not accompany his or her parent to the country of origin, but has remained since birth in the host country, and










(iii)


the country of origin lays down the same requirement of a connection for other nationals in the country of origin who do not satisfy the residence requirement and who apply for student financial aid for studies abroad in another country in the EU?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1).
Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case M.9997 — HMM/CMA CGM/DIF/TTIA) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 402/02
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage for hire or reward, container, economic concentration, harbour installation, investment company, logistics, maritime shipping, merger control, multinational enterprise








C_2020402EN.01000201.xml










25.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/2






Withdrawal of notification of a concentration
(Case M.9997 — HMM/CMA CGM/DIF/TTIA)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 402/02)
Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004
On 9 November 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 17 November 2020, the notifying parties informed the Commission that they withdrew their notification.


(1)  OJ C 393, 18.11.2020, p. 6.

(2)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.