do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-192/20: Order of the General Court of 1 December 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Ultra Tef-Gel) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, insulator, lubricants, metal coating, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01005102.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/51






Order of the General Court of 1 December 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Ultra Tef-Gel)
(Case T-192/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 35/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tikal Marine Systems GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: M. Mahnkopf, lawyer)

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: Ultra Safety Systems Inc. (Magonia Park, Florida, United States) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, A. von Mühlendahl and P. Böhner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2020 (Case R 2499/2018-4), relating to cancellation proceedings between Ultra Safety Systems and Tikal Marine Systems.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Tikal Marine Systems GmbH and Ultra Safety Systems Inc. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case C-645/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 1 December 2020 — VA, ZA v TP
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: jurisdiction, law of succession, residence








C_2021053EN.01002602.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 1 December 2020 — VA, ZA v TP
(Case C-645/20)
(2021/C 53/35)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: VA, ZA

Defendant: TP

Question referred

Must Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death is not located in a Member State, the court of a Member State in which the deceased had not established his habitual residence but which finds that the deceased had the nationality of that State and held assets in it must, of its own motion, examine whether it has subsidiary jurisdiction under that article?


(1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10062— SDK/Freja Transport&Logistics) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 415/14
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: air transport, carriage of goods, economic concentration, harbour installation, land transport, logistics, maritime transport, merger control, waterway transport








C_2020415EN.01003501.xml










1.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 415/35






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10062— SDK/Freja Transport&Logistics)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 415/14)

1.   
On 23 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:






—


SDK A/S (‘SDK’, Denmark), part of the group A/S United Shipping & Trading Company (‘USTC’) and ultimately controlled by the Danish citizens Mr. Torben Østergaard Nielsen, Ms. Mia Østergaard Nielsen, and Ms. Nina Østergaard Borris;










—


Freja Transport & Logistics Holding A/S (‘FTL’, Denmark), owned by JJH Invest ApS and AH Skive ApS and ultimately controlled by the Danish citizen Mr. Jørgen Jørgensen Hansen.




SDK acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of FTL. The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for SDK: shipping, logistics, chartering and other services to the cruise industry in Northern Europe including stevedoring, port agency, customs clearing, commercial chartering, freight forwarding services by road and sea and to a limited extent by air;










—


for FTL: domestic and cross-border freight forwarding by land and to a limited extent by air and sea.






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.10062— SDK/Freja Transport & Logistics
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.
Case T-707/20: Action brought on 1st December 2020 — Skyworks Solutions v EUIPO — Sky (Sky5)
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, consultancy, electronic device, radio telecommunications, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, user guide, waveband








C_2021028EN.01006302.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/63






Action brought on 1st December 2020 — Skyworks Solutions v EUIPO — Sky (Sky5)
(Case T-707/20)
(2021/C 28/94)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Muir Wood, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Sky5 — Application for registration No 17 837 221

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 September 2020 in Case R 229/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


reject the objections to registration of the contested mark in their entirety;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.





Pleas in law







—


The Board f of Appeal failed to consider the appeal properly or at all;










—


The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that a likelihood of confusion would arise in respect of the class 40 services;










—


The Board of Appeal breached the rules of natural justice by reaching its decision on bases other than those argued before it;










—


The Board of Appeal was wrong to conclude that the Licence demonstrated that the Opponent was entitled to bring oppositions in reliance on the European Union trade mark;










—


The opposition will be devoid of purpose, insofar as it is based on the United Kingdom trade mark, at the end of the transition period, i.e. from 1 January 2021, when references to Member States in the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council will no longer refer to the United Kingdom.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10011 — ORIX/Cambourne/ORIX India Wind/GEH Assets) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 422/06
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy production, financial services, holding company, investment company, merger control, multinational enterprise, provision of services, subsidiary, wind energy








C_2020422EN.01000601.xml










7.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10011 — ORIX/Cambourne/ORIX India Wind/GEH Assets)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 422/06)
On 1 December 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 32020M10011. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-648/20: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Westminster Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2020 — Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office v PI
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, arrest, public prosecution, public prosecutor's department








C_2021062EN.01001602.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/16






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Westminster Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2020 — Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office v PI
(Case C-648/20)
(2021/C 62/19)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Westminster Magistrates’ Court

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office

Defendant: PI

Question referred

Where surrender is sought in order to prosecute a requested person, and where the decision to issue an underlying national arrest warrant (‘NAW’) and the decision to issue a European arrest warrant (‘EAW’) are both taken by a public prosecutor, without any involvement of a Court prior to surrender, does a requested person receive the dual level of protection envisaged by the Court in Bob-Dogi C-241/15 (1) if:






a.


the effect of the NAW is limited to detaining the individual for a maximum of 72 hours for the purpose of bringing him before a Court; and










b.


on surrender, it is solely a matter for the Court whether to order release, or to continue detention, in light of all the circumstances of the case?






(1)  Judgment of the Court of 1/6/2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:385)
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 30 November 2020 2020/C 415/11
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020415EN.01003101.xml










1.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 415/31






Euro exchange rates (1)

30 November 2020
(2020/C 415/11)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1980 




JPY


Japanese yen


124,79 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4412 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89845 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1778 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0839 




ISK


Iceland króna


159,06 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,5610 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,192 




HUF


Hungarian forint


359,59 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4710 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8732 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,3155 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6246 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5516 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2862 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7027 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6029 




KRW


South Korean won


1 326,08 




ZAR


South African rand


18,4251 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8798 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5538 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 966,44 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8807 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,690 




RUB


Russian rouble


91,1439 




THB


Thai baht


36,257 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3519 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,0499 




INR


Indian rupee


88,7322 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-647/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 1 December 2020 — XG v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, capital gains tax, equal treatment, residence, tax law, transfer of property








C_2021053EN.01002701.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 1 December 2020 — XG v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
(Case C-647/20)
(2021/C 53/36)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: XG

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

May capital gains arising from a property transaction consisting in the sale of an immovable property purchased by a Portuguese national not resident in the European Union be subjected to a discriminatory system of taxation which is more onerous by comparison with that which is applied to residents, who benefit from a 50 % reduction of the capital gains forming the basis of the calculation of income tax, in accordance with the provisions of Article 65(1)(a) TFEU?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10029 - ABN AMRO BANK/ODDO BHF/JV) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 415/15
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: bank, banking, economic concentration, financial services, merger control








C_2020415EN.01003601.xml










1.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 415/36






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10029 - ABN AMRO BANK/ODDO BHF/JV)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 415/15)

1.   
On 24 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:






—


ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (‘ABN AMRO’, the Netherlands), and,










—


ODDO BHF SCA (‘ODDO BHF’, France).




ABN AMRO and ODDO BHF will acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of ABN AMRO-ODDO BHF B.V.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for ABN AMRO: a Dutch bank active in retail banking (including private banking), corporate banking, investment banking and offering brokerage, clearing and custody services.










—


for ODDO BHF: a Franco-German financial services group active in private banking, asset management, corporate banking, investment banking, research and brokerage services and metals and foreign exchange services.






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.10029 — ABN AMRO Bank/Oddo BHF/JV
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.
Case C-646/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 1 December 2020 — Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht v TB
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: divorce, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial separation, jurisdiction, official document








C_2021044EN.01003002.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/30






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 1 December 2020 — Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht v TB
(Case C-646/20)
(2021/C 44/36)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant in the appeal on a point of law: Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, Standesamtsaufsicht

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: TB

Other parties to the proceedings: Standesamt Mitte von Berlin, RD

Questions referred

The following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 1(1)(a), Article 2, point 4, Article 21(1) and Article 46 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (1) are referred for a preliminary ruling:






1.


Is the dissolution of a marriage on the basis of Article 12 of Decreto Legge (Italian Decree-Law) No 132 of 12 September 2014 (‘DL No 132/2014’) a divorce within the meaning of the Brussels IIa Regulation?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the dissolution of a marriage on the basis of Article 12 of DL No 132/2014 to be treated in accordance with the rule in Article 46 of the Brussels IIa Regulation on authentic instruments and agreements?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1; the Brussels IIa Regulation).
Case T-185/20: Order of the General Court of 1 December 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Tikal Tef-Gel) (EU trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-12-01
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, insulator, lubricants, preservative, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021035EN.01005101.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/51






Order of the General Court of 1 December 2020 — Tikal Marine Systems v EUIPO — Ultra Safety Systems (Tikal Tef-Gel)
(Case T-185/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Cancellation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 35/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tikal Marine Systems GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany) (represented by: M. Mahnkopf, lawyer)

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: Ultra Safety Systems Inc. (Magonia Park, Florida, United States) (represented by: C. Eckhartt, A. von Mühlendahl and P. Böhner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2020 (Case R 2500/2018-4), relating to cancellation proceedings between Ultra Safety Systems and Tikal Marine Systems.

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


Tikal Marine Systems GmbH and Ultra Safety Systems Inc. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.