do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 15 December 2020 2020/C 435/02
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2020435EN.01000201.xml










16.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 435/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

15 December 2020
(2020/C 435/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2140 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,08 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4427 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90795 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1928 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0770 




ISK


Iceland króna


154,80 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,6140 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,361 




HUF


Hungarian forint


355,32 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,4426 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8688 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,5295 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6113 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5473 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4110 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7174 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6195 




KRW


South Korean won


1 327,69 




ZAR


South African rand


18,1409 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9462 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5262 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 196,01 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9222 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,334 




RUB


Russian rouble


89,4183 




THB


Thai baht


36,467 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,1783 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,4905 




INR


Indian rupee


89,3400 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-515/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Fakro v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Market for roof windows and flashings — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Access to the file — Principle of sound administration — Reasonable period — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — No EU interest — Probability of being able to establish the existence of an infringement — Predatory pricing — ‘Fighting brands’ — Rebates — Exclusivity)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: building materials, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, glass, reduced price, selling at a loss








C_2021062EN.01002501.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/25






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Fakro v Commission
(Case T-515/18) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Market for roof windows and flashings - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Access to the file - Principle of sound administration - Reasonable period - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - No EU interest - Probability of being able to establish the existence of an infringement - Predatory pricing - ‘Fighting brands’ - Rebates - Exclusivity)
(2021/C 62/30)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Fakro sp. z o.o. (Nowy Sącz, Poland) (represented by: A. Radkowiak-Macuda and Z. Kiedacz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, I. Rogalski and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Wiącek and M. Rzotkiewicz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 3864 final of 14 June 2018 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant alleging infringements of Article 102 TFEU in the market for roof windows and flashings (Case AT.40026 — Velux).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fakro sp. z o.o., the European Commission and the Republic of Poland to each bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case T-442/17 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — RN v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Proportionality — Concept of ‘spouse’)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, age discrimination, equal treatment, legality, marriage, married person, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU), survivor's benefit








C_2021062EN.01002401.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/24






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — RN v Commission
(Case T-442/17 RENV) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Proportionality - Concept of ‘spouse’)
(2021/C 62/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RN (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 24 September 2014 rejecting the applicant’s request for a survivor's pension.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 24 September 2014 rejecting RN’s request for a survivor’s pension;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by RN relating to Case F-104/15 and in the present proceedings on referral;










3.


Orders the Commission and RN each to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings in Case T-695/16 P;










4.


Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs relating to Case F-104/15 and the present proceedings on referral.






(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.
Case C-685/20 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by Eleanor Sharpston against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2020 in Case T-550/20, Sharpston v Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: United Kingdom, admissibility, member of the Court of Justice (EU), withdrawal from the EU








C_2021310EN.01000902.xml










2.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 310/9






Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by Eleanor Sharpston against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 6 October 2020 in Case T-550/20, Sharpston v Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
(Case C-685/20 P)
(2021/C 310/11)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Eleanor Sharpston (represented by: N. Forwood, Barrister-at-Law, J. Robb, Barrister, J. Flynn QC and H. Mercer QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
By order of 16 June 2021, the Court of Justice (First Chamber) decided that the appeal is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.
Case T-732/20: Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (CRYSTAL)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, road safety, sports equipment, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle, vehicle








C_2021044EN.01005901.xml










8.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/59






Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Freundlieb v EUIPO (CRYSTAL)
(Case T-732/20)
(2021/C 44/81)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Andreas Freundlieb (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: J. Vogtmeier, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark CRYSTAL — EU trade mark No 8 372 591

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 October 2020 in Case R 1056/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and order that his rights in EU trade mark No 8 372 591 be re-established in accordance with his application;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 104(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-681/20 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by smart things solutions GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Case T-48/19, smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, electronic device, furniture industry, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2021228EN.01001202.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/12






Appeal brought on 16 December 2020 by smart things solutions GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 15 October 2020 in Case T-48/19, smart things solutions v EUIPO — Samsung Electronics (smart:)things)
(Case C-681/20 P)
(2021/C 228/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: smart things solutions GmbH (represented by: R. Dissmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Samsung Electronics GmbH
By order of 24 March 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that smart things solutions GmbH should bear its own costs.
Case T-736/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — HA v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Ceiling for reimbursement of equipment for the treatment of sleep apnoea — Action for annulment — No purely confirmatory act — Interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Joint Rules on sickness insurance for officials — General implementing provisions)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, health expenditure, medical device, respiratory disease








C_2021053EN.01003602.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/36






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — HA v Commission
(Case T-736/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Ceiling for reimbursement of equipment for the treatment of sleep apnoea - Action for annulment - No purely confirmatory act - Interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Joint Rules on sickness insurance for officials - General implementing provisions)
(2021/C 53/48)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HA (represented by: S. Kreicher, lawyer)

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

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission which set a ceiling for reimbursement of EUR 3 100 for the rental of medical equipment for the period from 1 March 2019 to 29 February 2024.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 17 January 2019 which set a ceiling for reimbursement of EUR 3 100 for the rental of medical equipment for the period from 1 March 2019 to 29 February 2024 and the decision of the Commission of 13 August 2019 which dismissed the complaint lodged against that decision;










2.


Orders the Commission to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 432, 23.12.2019.
Case T-535/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark JCE HOTTINGUER — Non-registered earlier national trade mark HOTTINGER — Relative ground for refusal — Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark — Rules governing common law actions for passing-off — Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, respectively))
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, banking, consultancy, financial services, insurance, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021053EN.01003501.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/35






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — H.R. Participations v EUIPO — Hottinger Investment Management (JCE HOTTINGUER)
(Case T-535/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark JCE HOTTINGUER - Non-registered earlier national trade mark HOTTINGER - Relative ground for refusal - Reference to the national law governing the earlier mark - Rules governing common law actions for passing-off - Article 8(4) and Article 53(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001, respectively))
(2021/C 53/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: H.R. Participations SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Wilhelm, J. Rossi, E. Dumur and G. Hadot-Pericard, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: 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: Hottinger Investment Management Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. Sander, Solicitor, and M. Beebe, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2019 (Case R 2078/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Hottinger Investment Management and H.R. Participations.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders H.R. Participations SA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2194 of 16 December 2020 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Milas Zeytinyağı’ (PDO))
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: Türkiye, designation of origin, labelling, olive oil, product designation








L_2020434EN.01002901.xml










23.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 434/29








            COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2020/2194
of 16 December 2020
         
entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (‘Milas Zeytinyağı’ (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 Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, Turkey’s application to register the name ‘Milas Zeytinyağı’ 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 ‘Milas Zeytinyağı’ should therefore be entered in the register,





HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:



Article 1
The name ‘Milas Zeytinyağı’ (PDO) 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, 16 December 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 270, 17.8.2020, p. 7.

(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).
Case T-3/20: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Forbo Financial Services v EUIPO — Windmöller (Canoleum) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Canoleum — Earlier international word mark MARMOLEUM — Relative ground for refusal — Late filing of the statement of the grounds of appeal — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Request for restitutio in integrum — Sudden illness of the lawyer representing the applicant — Duty of due care — Probative value of the affidavit made by the lawyer)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, floor coverings, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021062EN.01002901.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/29






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Forbo Financial Services v EUIPO — Windmöller (Canoleum)
(Case T-3/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Canoleum - Earlier international word mark MARMOLEUM - Relative ground for refusal - Late filing of the statement of the grounds of appeal - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Request for restitutio in integrum - Sudden illness of the lawyer representing the applicant - Duty of due care - Probative value of the affidavit made by the lawyer)
(2021/C 62/35)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Forbo Financial Services AG (Baar, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Windmöller GmbH (Augustdorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 October 2019 (Case R 773/2019-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Forbo Financial Services and Windmöller.

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 9 October 2019 (Case R 773/2019-2);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Case T-734/20: Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Boquoi Handels v EUIPO (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, foodstuff, fruit, household article, non-alcoholic beverage, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vegetable








C_2021053EN.01004801.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/48






Action brought on 16 December 2020 — Boquoi Handels v EUIPO (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background)
(Case T-734/20)
(2021/C 53/64)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Boquoi Handels OHG (Grünwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Lorenz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark (Representation of an ice crystal on a blue circular background) — Application for registration No 17 970 116

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 September 2020 in Case R 522/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9936 — Imabari Shipbuilding/JFE/IHI/Japan Marine United) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 236/02
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, heavy industry, holding company, iron and steel industry, merger control, real estate business, shipbuilding, vessel








C_2021236EN.01000201.xml










18.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 236/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9936 — Imabari Shipbuilding/JFE/IHI/Japan Marine United)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 236/02)
On 16 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 32020M9936. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-665/19: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark €$ — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2020-12-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic publishing, exchange transaction, financial services, foreign currency, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2021053EN.01003601.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/36






Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)
(Case T-665/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark €$ - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2021/C 53/47)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska and K. Gajek, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2019 (Case R 1345/2018-1) regarding an application for registration of the figurative sign €$ as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.