do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht in the case of ADCADA Immobilien AG PCC v Finanzmarktaufsicht (Case E-10/20) 2020/C 436/07
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Liechtenstein, advertising, consumer information, dissemination of information, mass media, official market, publication, securities, trade information








C_2020436EN.01000901.xml










17.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/9






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht in the case of ADCADA Immobilien AG PCC v Finanzmarktaufsicht
(Case E-10/20)
(2020/C 436/07)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 29 July 2020 from Beschwerdekommission der Finanzmarktaufsicht (Board of Appeal of the Financial Market Authority), which was received at the Court Registry on 5 August 2020, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of ADCADA Immobilien AG PCC v Finanzmarktaufsicht on the following questions:






1.


On the basis of what criteria is it to be assessed, whether in accordance with Article 2(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading on a regulated market, sufficient information on the terms of the offer and the securities to be offered has been issued, so as to enable an investor to decide to purchase or subscribe for those securities?










2.


Is it significant for the assessment whether an offer to the public exists within the meaning of Article 2(d) of that regulation if the promotion includes the clearly visible direction ‘HIER INFORMIEREN’ (‘GET FURTHER INFORMATION HERE’) or ‘Unverbindlich informieren’(‘Get further information without obligation’) and the full bond terms are not accessible online or otherwise generally available?










3.


Is it significant for the purposes of Article 1(4)(b) of that regulation if the offeror takes appropriate measures to ensure that the full terms of the bond are communicated to prospective buyers only upon request, whilst at the same time it is ensured that the communication is made only to a maximum of 149 natural or legal persons per Member State, which are not qualified investors?










4.


Is it significant for the purposes of Article 1(4)(b) of that regulation that the offer is disseminated in a Member State through various media? If so, under what conditions is the offer presented in various media to be regarded as a consolidated offer of the same security to the public and under what conditions is there a new offer? It is possible to fall below the number of 150 natural or legal persons per Member State by dividing the offer across different media?
Case T-80/20: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB and EIF (Action for annulment — Institutional law — Post of Director-General of the EIF — Rejection of the applicant’s candidature — Appointment of another candidate — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, age discrimination, appointment of members, competition (EU), confidentiality, data protection, personal data, recruitment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2021062EN.01003301.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/33






Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB and EIF
(Case T-80/20) (1)

(Action for annulment - Institutional law - Post of Director-General of the EIF - Rejection of the applicant’s candidature - Appointment of another candidate - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 62/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: IM (represented by: D. Giabbani, lawyer)

Defendants: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers), European Investment Fund (represented by: N. Panayotopoulos and F. Dascalescu, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the EIF of 11 December 2019 appointing a new Director-General of the EIF.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


IM shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Case T-872/19: Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB (Action for damages — Institutional law — Position of Chief Executive of the EIF — Vacancy notice — Rejection of the applicant’s application — Lack of autonomy of remedies — Time limit for bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: age discrimination, appointment of staff, damages, indemnification, managing director, personal data, recruitment








C_2021062EN.01003201.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/32






Order of the General Court of 17 December 2020 — IM v EIB
(Case T-872/19) (1)

(Action for damages - Institutional law - Position of Chief Executive of the EIF - Vacancy notice - Rejection of the applicant’s application - Lack of autonomy of remedies - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 62/39)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: IM (represented by: D. Giabbani, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, G. Faedo and M. Loizou, acting as Agents, and by J. Currall and B. Wägenbaur, lawyers)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant following the decisions of 3 and 9 October 2019 by which the EIB rejected his application for the position of Chief Executive of the European Investment Fund (EIF).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders IM to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 68, 2.3.2020.
Case C-607/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Husqvarna AB v Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(1)(a) — Article 55(1) — Revocation of rights in an EU mark — EU mark which has not been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years — Expiry of the period of five years — Date of assessment)
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021062EN.01000502.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/5






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Husqvarna AB v Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-607/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(1)(a) - Article 55(1) - Revocation of rights in an EU mark - EU mark which has not been put to genuine use within a continuous period of five years - Expiry of the period of five years - Date of assessment)
(2021/C 62/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Husqvarna AB

Defendant and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Lidl Digital International GmbH & Co. KG, formerly Lidl E-Commerce International GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a counterclaim for the revocation of rights in an EU mark, the relevant date for the purposes of determining whether the continuous five-year period referred to in that provision has ended is the date on which that counterclaim was filed.


(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Case C-683/20: Action brought on 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
Date: 2020-12-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action programme, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, noise pollution, noise protection, rail transport, road transport








C_2021053EN.01002702.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/27






Action brought on 17 December 2020 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
(Case C-683/20)
(2021/C 53/37)
Language of the case: Slovak

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lindenthal, M. Noll-Ehlers, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Slovak Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that, by failing to draw up action plans and by failing to send the Commission a summary of the action plans for 445 major road sections, the Slovak Republic has infringed Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, in conjunction with Annex VI thereto;










—


Declare that, by failing to draw up action plans and by failing to send the Commission a summary of the action plans for 16 major rail sections, the Slovak Republic has infringed Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, in conjunction with Annex VI thereto; and










—


order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 8(2) of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Slovak Republic was to ensure that action plans were drawn up for major road sections (roads with more than three million vehicle passages per year) and major rail sections (railways with more than 30000 train passages per year) within its territory by 18 July 2013. Under Article 10(2) of that directive, in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, the Slovak Republic was then to ensure that the summaries of the action plans were sent to the Commission by 18 January 2014.
The Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations stemming from Article 8(2) and Article 10(2) of the Directive, in conjunction with Annex VI thereto, so far as concerns 445 major road sections and 16 major rail sections which it had previously notified to the Commission.


(1)  OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12.