do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-823/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2020 — European Commission v GEA Group AG (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European markets for tin-based heat stabilisers and for heat stabilisers with epoxised soybean oil and esters as their base — Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information — Application of the ceiling of 10 % of turnover to one of the entities forming the undertaking — Annulment of the decision amending the fine imposed in the initial infringement decision — Fines — Concept of an ‘undertaking’ — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Principle of equal treatment — Date on which the fine is payable in the event of amendment)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, chemical product, control of restrictive practices, equal treatment, exchange of information, market-sharing agreement, price agreement, sanction (EU), trade information, turnover








C_2021035EN.01000501.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2020 — European Commission v GEA Group AG
(Case C-823/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European markets for tin-based heat stabilisers and for heat stabilisers with epoxised soybean oil and esters as their base - Price fixing, market allocation and exchange of commercially sensitive information - Application of the ceiling of 10 % of turnover to one of the entities forming the undertaking - Annulment of the decision amending the fine imposed in the initial infringement decision - Fines - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Principle of equal treatment - Date on which the fine is payable in the event of amendment)
(2021/C 35/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: initially, T. Christoforou, P. Rossi and V. Bottka, and, subsequently, P. Rossi and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: GEA Group AG (represented by: C. Wagner and I. du Mont, Rechtsanwälte)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 October 2018, GEA Group v Commission (T-640/16, EU:T:2018:700);










2.


Refers Case T-640/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2020/C 402/04
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: Atlantic Ocean, EU waters, Portugal, catch by species, catch quota, fishing area, fishing rights, international waters, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2020402EN.01000401.xml










25.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/4






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2020/C 402/04)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure


27.10.2020




Duration


27.10.2020 - 31.12.2020




Member State


Portugal




Stock or Group of stocks


BET/ATLANT




Species


Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) including special condition BET/*ATLLL and BET/*ATLPS




Zone


Atlantic Ocean




Type(s) of fishing vessels


---




Reference number


30/TQ123






(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case C-637/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, provision of services








C_2021053EN.01002402.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Skatteverket v DSAB Destination Stockholm AB
(Case C-637/20)
(2021/C 53/32)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant and respondent: Skatteverket

Respondent and appellant: DSAB Destination Stockholm AB

Question referred

Must Article 30(a) of the VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that a card, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which gives the cardholder the right to receive various services at a given place for a limited period of time and up to a certain value constitutes a voucher and, in such circumstances, constitutes a multi-purpose voucher?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the treatment of vouchers (OJ 2016 L 177, p. 9).
Case T-862/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Brasserie St Avold v EUIPO (shape of a dark bottle) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Three-dimensional sign — Shape of a dark bottle — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, alcoholic beverage, non-alcoholic beverage, packaging product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021028EN.01004302.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/43






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Brasserie St Avold v EUIPO (shape of a dark bottle)
(Case T-862/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Three-dimensional sign - Shape of a dark bottle - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 28/66)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Brasserie St Avold (Saint-Avold, France) (represented by: P. Greffe, D. Brun and F. Donaud, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 October 2019 (Case R 466/2019-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a dark bottle.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Brasserie St Avold to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Case T-875/19: 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 figurative 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.01004402.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-875/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative 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 28/68)
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 2321/2018-5), 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9968 — TOTAL/Ørsted UK) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 402/05
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electricity supply, gas industry, gas supply, merger control, oil industry, petrochemicals, retail trade








C_2020402EN.01000501.xml










25.11.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 402/5






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9968 — TOTAL/Ørsted UK)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 402/05)

1.   
On 16 November 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:






—


TOTAL S.E. (“TOTAL”, France),










—


A portfolio of Ørsted Sales (UK) Limited and Ørsted Power Sales (UK) Limited's business-to-business contracts for the retail supply of gas and electricity and other related assets (“Ørsted UK”, UK), controlled by Ørsted A/S.




TOTAL acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Ørsted UK.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for TOTAL: it is engaged in every sector of the oil and gas industry, including upstream (hydrocarbon exploration, development and production) and downstream (refining, petrochemicals, specialty chemicals, trading and shipping of crude oil and petroleum products and marketing),










—


for Ørsted UK: business-to-business contracts for the retail supply of gas and electricity and other related assets.






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.



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.9968 — TOTAL/Ørsted UK
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’).
Case C-636/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU customs procedure, customs regulations, rights of the defence








C_2021062EN.01001601.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pécsi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Tolnatext Bt. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-636/20)
(2021/C 62/18)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Pécsi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Tolnatext Bt.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Question referred

Must Article 22(6) and Article 29 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (1) be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to procedures carried out by a customs authority which is not acting in a judicial capacity, that authority must grant a right to be heard in procedures undertaken ex officio as well as in those undertaken on application?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1).
Case T-802/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Kisscolor Living v EUIPO — Teoxane (KISS COLOR) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark KISS COLOR — Earlier EU word mark KISS — 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) — Temporal application of the law)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, decontamination, dietary product, hairdressing and beauty care, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021028EN.01004301.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/43






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Kisscolor Living v EUIPO — Teoxane (KISS COLOR)
(Case T-802/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark KISS COLOR - Earlier EU word mark KISS - 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) - Temporal application of the law)
(2021/C 28/65)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Kisscolor Living GmbH (Bad Homburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Büttner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Teoxane SA (Geneva, Switzerland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2167/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Teoxane and Kisscolor Living.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kisscolor Living GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-882/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Kerangus v EUIPO (ΑΠΛΑ!) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark ΑΠΛΑ! — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Equal treatment)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, miscellaneous industries, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021028EN.01004501.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/45






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — Kerangus v EUIPO (ΑΠΛΑ!)
(Case T-882/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark ΑΠΛΑ! - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Equal treatment)
(2021/C 28/69)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Kerangus Holdings Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: A.-E. Malami, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Giannopoulos and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2019 (Case R 1035/2017-1), concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign ΑΠΛΑ! as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Kerangus Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case C-633/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insurance occupation, personal accident insurance, trade intermediary








C_2021062EN.01001501.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2020 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH
(Case C-633/20)
(2021/C 62/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TC Medical Air Ambulance Agency GmbH

Question referred

Is an undertaking which maintains, as the policyholder, foreign travel medical insurance and insurance covering foreign and domestic repatriation costs as a group insurance policy for its customers with an insurance undertaking, distributes to consumers memberships entitling them to claim insurance benefits in the event of illness or accident abroad and receives a fee from recruited members for the insurance cover purchased an insurance intermediary within the meaning of Article 2(3) and (5) of Directive 2002/92/EC (1) and Article 2(1)(1), (3) and (8) of Directive (EU) 2016/97? (2)



(1)  Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (OJ 2003 L 9, p. 3).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (recast) (OJ 2016 L 26, p. 19).
Case C-269/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Banca B. SA v A.A.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Consequences of a term being found to be unfair — Replacement of the unfair term — Method for calculating the variable interest rate — Whether permissible — Referral of the parties to negotiations)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: borrowing, consumer credit, consumer protection, interest, termination of a contract, unfair terms of contract








C_2021035EN.01001002.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/10






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 November 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Cluj — Romania) — Banca B. SA v A.A.A.
(Case C-269/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Consequences of a term being found to be unfair - Replacement of the unfair term - Method for calculating the variable interest rate - Whether permissible - Referral of the parties to negotiations)
(2021/C 35/12)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Banca B. SA

Respondent: A.A.A.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, after terms establishing the mechanism for determining the variable interest rate in a loan agreement such as that at issue in the main proceedings have been found to be unfair, and when that contract cannot continue to exist following the removal of the unfair terms in question, annulment of the contract would have particularly unfavourable consequences for the consumer and there are no supplementary provisions under national law, the national court must, while taking into account all of its national law, take all the measures necessary to protect the consumer from the particularly unfavourable consequences which could result from annulment of the loan agreement in question. In circumstances such as those in question in the main proceedings, nothing precludes the national court from, inter alia, inviting the parties to negotiate with the aim of establishing the method for calculating the interest rate, provided that that court sets out the framework for those negotiations and that those negotiations seek to establish an effective balance between the rights and obligations of the parties taking into account in particular the objective of consumer protection underlying Directive 93/13.


(1)  OJ C 238, 15.7.2019.
Case T-166/19: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 –Bronckers v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks — Documents submitted within the framework of the Joint Committee — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)
Date: 2020-11-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Mexico, access to EU information, mutual recognition principle, spirits, trade agreement (EU), trade information








C_2021028EN.01003701.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/37






Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 –Bronckers v Commission
(Case T-166/19) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Agreement between the European Community and the United Mexican States on the mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks - Documents submitted within the framework of the Joint Committee - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in respect of international relations - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party)
(2021/C 28/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marco Bronckers (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Kreijger, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2019) 150 final of 10 January 2019, rejecting the confirmatory application for access to the documents ‘Tequila cases found by the Tequila Regulatory Council to be informed to the European Commission (Ares(2018 4023479)’ and ‘Verification Reports in the European Market (Reportes de Verificación en el Mercado Europeo) (Ares(2018) 4023509)’.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Marco Bronckers to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 164, 13.5.2019.