do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-289/20: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Facegym Ltd v EUIPO (FACEGYM) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark FACEGYM — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetics industry, education, hairdressing and beauty care, hand tool, medical device, provision of services, registered trade mark, therapeutics, trade-mark law








C_2021062EN.01003401.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/34






Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Facegym Ltd v EUIPO (FACEGYM)
(Case T-289/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark FACEGYM - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2021/C 62/43)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Facegym Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 February 2020 (Case R 70/2020-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign FACEGYM as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Facegym Ltd shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.
Case T-146/16: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission (State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, control of restrictive practices, environmental protection, land and buildings, non-profit organisation, services of general interest








C_2021062EN.01003002.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/30






Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland and Others v Commission
(Case T-146/16) (1)

(State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
(2021/C 62/37)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicants: Vereniging tot Behoud van Natuurmonumenten in Nederland (‘s-Graveland, Netherlands) and the 12 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the order (represented by: P. Kuypers and M. de Wit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Bulterman, J. Langer and M. Noort, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 5929 final of 2 September 2015 on State aid SA.27301 (2015/NN) — Netherlands, relating to the subsidised acquisition or free granting of nature land, a summary of which has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 9, p. 1).

Operative part of the order







1.


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










2.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application to intervene lodged by Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II.










3.


Each party shall bear its own costs.










4.


Vereniging Gelijkberechtiging Grondbezitters and the other applicants for leave to intervene whose names are set out in Annex II shall bear the costs relating to their application to intervene.






(1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.
Case T-751/20: Action brought on 18 December 2020 — KL v EIB
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, abuse of power, disciplinary proceedings, indemnification, medical report, principle of proportionality








C_2021053EN.01005701.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/57






Action brought on 18 December 2020 — KL v EIB
(Case T-751/20)
(2021/C 53/74)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: KL (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well founded;










—


consequently, annul the EIB’s decision of 18 May 2020 according to which the applicant’s medical certificates from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 are invalid under Article 3.3 of Annex X to the administrative provisions;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decision dated 12 September 2020 rejecting the applicant’s administrative action against the initial decision of 18 May 2020;










—


order the EIB to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;










—


order the EIB to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea, alleging infringement of Article 3.3 of Annex X to the administrative provisions. The applicant is of the opinion, inter alia, that that article is not applicable, on the ground that there is, in this instance, no justified case which would allow the medical service to reject the medical certificates which he has submitted.










2.


Second plea, alleging infringement of the duty of care and of the principle of proportionality, as well as an abuse of rights. The applicant claims in that regard that the defendant’s attitude only serves to worsen his medical situation, which is already extremely fragile, on the ground that the contested decisions, by denying the validity of his two medical certificates for the periods from 18 March to 18 April and from 20 April to 20 May 2020 and by threatening him with disciplinary proceedings, seriously exacerbate his general state of anxiety.
Case T-742/20: Action brought on 18 December 2020 — UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product, right to justice, rights of the defence, withdrawal from the market








C_2021053EN.01005201.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/52






Action brought on 18 December 2020 — UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v Commission
(Case T-742/20)
(2021/C 53/68)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: UPL Europe Ltd (Warrington Cheshire, United Kingdom) and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and P. Sellar, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the application admissible and well-founded;










—


annul the Commission’s Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2087 concerning the non-renewal of the approval of the active substance mancozeb, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 (1) (‘the Contested Act’); and,










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that an essential procedural requirement has been infringed by a failure to comply with the procedure in Articles 11 to 14 of Regulation 844/2012. (2)











2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure has been further vitiated by an infringement of the applicants’ rights of defence.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure was vitiated by an infringement of the principle of sound and good administration, and the defendant’s failure to act with impartiality in the course of the procedure.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure has been vitiated by a manifest error of assessment in that the defendant took the irrelevant facts of the proposed Reprotoxic 1B classification and the intrinsic properties of the substance’s metabolite ETU into account.










5.


Fifth plea in law, alleging that the assessment procedure has been vitiated by an infringement of the principle of legitimate expectation.






(1)  OJ 2020 L 423, p. 50.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012 of 18 September 2012 setting out the provisions necessary for the implementation of the renewal procedure for active substances, as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 2012 L 252, p. 26).
Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus 2020/C 437/04
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Belarus, EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2020437EN.01001501.xml










18.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/15






Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP, as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 and in Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus
(2020/C 437/04)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP (1), as implemented by Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2020/2130 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2129 (4), concerning restrictive measures against Belarus.
The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons should be included on the list or persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Regulation (EC) No 765/2006. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 3 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 December 2020, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu
Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, pursuant to Article 8(2) of Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Article 8a(4) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, of the list of designated persons and entities.


(1)  OJ L 285, 17.10.2012, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 426 I, 17.12.2020, p. 14.

(3)  OJ L 134, 20.5.2006, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 426 I, 17.12.2020, p. 1.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10069 — HDI Assicurazioni/Amissima Assicurazioni) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 5/12
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, insurance company, merger control, provision of services








C_2021005EN.01001201.xml










7.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 5/12






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10069 — HDI Assicurazioni/Amissima Assicurazioni)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 5/12)
On 18 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 Italian language 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 32020M10069. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-568/19: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Micreos Food Safety v Commission (Action for annulment — Public health — Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Phage-based product used to reduce the presence of the bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes in animal-derived ready-to-eat food — Rejection of the request to approve Listex™ P100 as a decontaminant in animal-derived ready-to-eat food — Act not open to challenge — Act not intended to produce binding legal effects — Purely confirmatory act — Informative act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, animal product, application of EU law, decontamination, food contamination, food safety, market approval








C_2021062EN.01003101.xml










22.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 62/31






Order of the General Court of 18 December 2020 — Micreos Food Safety v Commission
(Case T-568/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Public health - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Phage-based product used to reduce the presence of the bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes in animal-derived ready-to-eat food - Rejection of the request to approve Listex™ P100 as a decontaminant in animal-derived ready-to-eat food - Act not open to challenge - Act not intended to produce binding legal effects - Purely confirmatory act - Informative act - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 62/38)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Micreos Food Safety BV (Wageningen, Netherlands) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers, W. Farrell and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the alleged decisions of the Commission of 17 June 2019 by which the Commission: (i) rejected the original application by the applicant for the approval of Listex™ P100 as a decontaminant in animal-derived ready-to-eat food, or re-examined that application; (ii) rejected the alternative application to regard Listex™ P100 as a non-decontaminating processing aid; and, (iii) prohibited the placing on the market of the European Union of that product as a processing aid in such food.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Micreos Food Safety BV shall pay the costs, including those of the interim proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.
Case C-715/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa — Nowej Huty w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 18 December 2020 — KL v X sp. z o.o.
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dismissal, equal treatment, full-time employment, judicial review, labour law, temporary employment, work contract








C_2021182EN.01002601.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa — Nowej Huty w Krakowie (Poland) lodged on 18 December 2020 — KL v X sp. z o.o.
(Case C-715/20)
(2021/C 182/37)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy dla Krakowa — Nowej Huty w Krakowie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KL

Defendant: X sp. z o.o.

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1 of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, (1) and also Clauses Nos 1 and 4 of that framework agreement, to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law obliging employers to state in writing the reasons for a decision giving notice of termination of an employment contract only in relation to employment contracts of indefinite duration, and consequently subjecting to judicial review the well-foundedness of the reasons for the notice of termination of contracts of indefinite duration, without at the same time imposing such an obligation on employers (that is to say, an obligation to state the reasons justifying the notice of termination) in relation to fixed-term employment contracts (as a result of which only the issue of the compliance of the notice of termination with the provisions on termination of contracts is subject to judicial review)?










2.


May the parties to a dispute before a court of law, in which private parties appear on both sides, rely on Clause No 4 of the abovementioned framework agreement and the general EU-law principle of non-discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), and consequently do the rules referred to above have horizontal effect?






(1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.
Council Decision of 18 December 2020 appointing two members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board 2020/C 445/02
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU statistics, advisory committee (EU), appointment of members




C_2020445EN.01000301.xml










22.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 445/3






COUNCIL DECISION
of 18 December 2020
appointing two members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board
(2020/C 445/02)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Decision No 235/2008/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008 establishing the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Commission,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decision of 18 December 2017 (2), the Council appointed three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (the ‘Board’) for a term of office of three years from 1 February 2018.










(2)


Following the resignation of one member before the end of his term of office, the Council, by means of Decision of 19 December 2019 (3), appointed a new member of the Board for a term of office of three years.










(3)


The term of office of two members appointed by Decision of 18 December 2017 will expire on 31 January 2021. It is therefore necessary to appoint two new members of the Board to take office upon expiry of their terms of office.










(4)


Article 3(2) of Decision No 235/2008/EC states that the members of the Board are to be selected from among experts possessing outstanding competence in the field of statistics,




HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1
The following persons are hereby appointed as the members representing the Council in the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board for a period of three years from 1 February 2021:






—


Mr Bart DE MOOR, and










—


Mr Jørgen ELMESKOV.






Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.


Done at Brussels, 18 December 2020.


For the Council


The President

M. ROTH




(1)  OJ L 73, 15.3.2008, p. 17.

(2)  Council Decision of 18 December 2017 appointing three members of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (OJ C 439, 20.12.2017, p. 5).

(3)  Council Decision of 19 December 2019 appointing a member of the European Statistical Governance Advisory Board (OJ C 428, 20.12.2019, p. 5).
Notification of the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (’Electricity Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity regarding the designation of Diamond Transmission Partners RB Limited and Diamond Transmission Partners Galloper Limited as transmission system operators in the United Kingdom 2020/C 437/08
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: United Kingdom
Subjects: United Kingdom, domestic market, electricity supply, private sector, public contract, transport network








C_2020437EN.01001901.xml










18.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 437/19






Notification of the United Kingdom pursuant to Article 10(2) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (’Electricity Directive’) concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity regarding the designation of Diamond Transmission Partners RB Limited and Diamond Transmission Partners Galloper Limited as transmission system operators in the United Kingdom
(2020/C 437/08)
Following the United Kingdom regulatory authority’s final decisions of 20 March 2019 and 7 October 2019 regarding the certification of Diamond Transmission Partners RB Limited and Diamond Transmission Partners Galloper Limited as Ownership Unbundled Transmission System Operators (Article 9 of the Electricity Directive), United Kingdom has notified to the Commission the official approval and designation of these companies as Transmission System Operators operating in the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 10 of the Electricity Directive of the European Parliament and the Council.
Any additional information can be obtained at the following address:





Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)




10 South Colonnade




Canary Wharf




E14 4PU London




UNITED KINGDOM
Case T-747/20: Action brought on 18 December 2020 — EOC Belgium v Commission
Date: 2020-12-18
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: China, anti-dumping duty, chemical alcohol, import (EU), originating product, restriction on competition








C_2021053EN.01005601.xml










15.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 53/56






Action brought on 18 December 2020 — EOC Belgium v Commission
(Case T-747/20)
(2021/C 53/72)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: EOC Belgium (Oudenaarde, Belgium) (represented by: Y. Melin, and B. Vigneron, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Article 1(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1336 of 25 September 2020 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols originating in the People’s Republic of China in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, in that the European Commission infringed Article 9(5) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, by imposing an anti-dumping duty in a discriminatory manner by granting an exemption on the basis of the end-use customs regime;










—


order the European Commission and any parties intervening in support of the Commission to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, which is, essentially, identical or similar to the plea raised in Case T-746/20, Grünig v Commission.