do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-253/20: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Oatly v EUIPO (IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, cereals, foodstuff, non-alcoholic beverage, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, substitute product, trade-mark law








C_2021072EN.01002501.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/25






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Oatly v EUIPO (IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS)
(Case T-253/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 72/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Oatly AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M. Johansson, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 February 2020 (Case R 2446/2019-5), regarding an application for registration of the word sign IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 February 2020 (Case R 2446/2019-5), regarding an application for registration of the word sign IT’S LIKE MILK BUT MADE FOR HUMANS as an EU trade mark;










2.


Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Oatly AB.






(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.
Case C-484/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Lexel AB v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Corporation tax — Taxation of associated companies — National tax legislation prohibiting a company which is established in one Member State from deducting interest paid to a company established in another Member State, belonging to the same group of companies, in the case where a substantial tax benefit is gained)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital transfer, corporation tax, establishment, group of companies, interest, nationality of legal persons, right of establishment, tax law, tax relief








C_2021079EN.01001102.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/11






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Lexel AB v Skatteverket
(Case C-484/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Corporation tax - Taxation of associated companies - National tax legislation prohibiting a company which is established in one Member State from deducting interest paid to a company established in another Member State, belonging to the same group of companies, in the case where a substantial tax benefit is gained)
(2021/C 79/13)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Lexel AB

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a company established in one Member State is not permitted to deduct interest payments made to a company belonging to the same group, established in another Member State, on the ground that the principal reason for the debt linking them appears to be the obtaining of a substantial tax benefit, whereas such a tax benefit would not have been deemed to exist if both companies had been established in the first Member State, as in that situation they would have been covered by the provisions on intra-group financial transfers.


(1)  OJ C 295, 2.9.2019.
Case C-655/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP) v LN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 2 — Article 9 — Concepts of ‘economic activity’ and ‘taxable person’ — Transactions which seek to obtain income from goods on a continuing basis — Acquisition by a creditor of immovable property in the context of an enforcement procedure carried out for the purpose of the recovery of loans secured by mortgage guarantees and the sale of those buildings — Simple exercise of right of ownership by its holder)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, acquisition of property, auction sale, debt, economic activity, enforcement of ruling, real property, taxpayer, transfer of property








C_2021079EN.01001401.xml










8.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 79/14






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia — Romania) — Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP) v LN
(Case C-655/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 2 - Article 9 - Concepts of ‘economic activity’ and ‘taxable person’ - Transactions which seek to obtain income from goods on a continuing basis - Acquisition by a creditor of immovable property in the context of an enforcement procedure carried out for the purpose of the recovery of loans secured by mortgage guarantees and the sale of those buildings - Simple exercise of right of ownership by its holder)
(2021/C 79/16)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu, Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)

Defendant: LN

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(1)(a) and Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a transaction by which a person acquires immovable property in the context of an enforcement procedure undertaken for the purpose of recovery of a loan which had previously been granted and, consequently, sells that property does not constitute, in itself, an economic activity, where that transaction falls within the scope of a simple exercise of the right of ownership and of the sound management of private assets, such that that person cannot, in the context of that transaction, be considered a taxable person.


(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
Decision (EU) 2021/429 of the European Parliament of 20 January 2021 extending the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EP Committee, animal welfare, application of EU law, committee of inquiry, protection of animals, transport of animals








L_2021086EN.01000101.xml










12.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 86/1








            DECISION (EU) 2021/429 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
         
of 20 January 2021
         
extending the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,






—


having regard to the proposal by the Conference of Presidents,










—


having regard to Article 226 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,










—


having regard to Decision 95/167/EC, Euratom, ECSC of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 19 April 1995 on the detailed provisions governing the exercise of the European Parliament’s right of inquiry (1),










—


having regard to its Decision (EU) 2020/1089 of 19 June 2020 on setting up a committee of inquiry to investigate alleged contraventions and maladministration in the application of Union law in relation to the protection of animals during transport within and outside the Union, and defining its responsibilities, numerical strength and term of office (2),










—


having regard to Rule 208(11) of its Rules of Procedure,










A.


whereas the Committee of Inquiry requested an extension of its term of office in order to enable it to fulfil its mandate fully and properly;






1.   

Decides to extend by three months the term of office of the Committee of Inquiry.






For the European Parliament


The President

D. M. SASSOLI
            





(1)  
            OJ L 113, 19.5.1995, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ L 239 I, 24.7.2020, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10024 — Blackstone/Winoa) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 21/07
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, metallurgical industry








C_2021021EN.01000801.xml










20.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10024 — Blackstone/Winoa)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 21/07)

1.   
On 11 January 2021, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


The Blackstone Group Inc. (United States of America), (‘Blackstone’),










—


Winoa SA (France), (‘Winoa’).




Blackstone acquire(s) within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Winoa.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Blackstone: global alternative asset management,










—


for Winoa: production and sale of metallic abrasives.






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.10024 — Blackstone/Winoa
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-28/21: Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, registered trade mark, software, telecommunications equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01003701.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/37






Action brought on 20 January 2021 — Apple v EUIPO — Swatch (THINK DIFFERENT)
(Case T-28/21)
(2021/C 88/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: I. Junkar, I. Fowler, M. Petersenn and B. Lüthge, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Swatch AG (Biel, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark THINK DIFFERENT — European Union trade mark No 4 415 063

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 November 2020 in Case R 2013/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if it joins as intervener.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 21/04
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, military equipment, petroleum product








C_2021021EN.01000401.xml










20.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/4






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)


(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))


(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 21/04)

Decisions granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2021) 47


13 January 2021


Pitch, coal tar, high temp.
EC No 266-028-2; CAS No 65996-93-2







ArianeGroup,




11 quai André Citroën,




75015 Paris, France






REACH/21/1/0


Industrial use of CTPht as precursor of carbon matrix in the manufacturing of thermally and thermo-mechanically highly loaded carbon/carbon parts including nozzle throats and other critical carbon-carbon composite parts, resistant to very harsh erosion conditions, and very high temperature ranges, dedicated to high performance civilian and military aerospace launchers


4 October 2032


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health from the use of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006 , p. 1


(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: http://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/chemicals/reach/about/index_en.htm
Case T-758/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — ABLV Bank v SRB (Economic and monetary Union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the 2015 and 2018 ex ante contributions — Rejection of the request for a recalculation and a reimbursement of contributions — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Institution whose licence has been withdrawn — Article 70(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — Concept of ‘change of status’ — Article 12(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, financing method, financing plan, fund (EU), trade licence








C_2021072EN.01002001.xml










1.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/20






Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — ABLV Bank v SRB
(Case T-758/18) (1)

(Economic and monetary Union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the 2015 and 2018 ex ante contributions - Rejection of the request for a recalculation and a reimbursement of contributions - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Institution whose licence has been withdrawn - Article 70(4) of Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - Concept of ‘change of status’ - Article 12(2) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/63)
(2021/C 72/29)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ABLV Bank AS (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: O. Behrends, lawyer)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB) (represented by: J. Kerlin and P. Messina, acting as Agents, and by B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, A. Nijenhuis and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the letter from the SRB of 17 October 2018 by which the SRB rejected the applicant’s application for, first, the recalculation of its 2018 ex ante contribution and the repayment of the overpayment and, second, the repayment of a portion of its 2015 ex ante contribution, following the withdrawal of its licence by the European Central Bank (ECB).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders ABLV Bank AS to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB);










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case C-34/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 20 January 2021 — Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: data protection, data-processing law, personal data, protection of privacy, staff, teacher








C_2021098EN.01001501.xml










22.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 20 January 2021 — Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium
(Case C-34/21)
(2021/C 98/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Hauptpersonalrat der Lehrerinnen und Lehrer beim Hessischen Kultusministerium

Defendant: Minister des Hessischen Kultusministeriums

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation — GDPR) to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to be a more specific rule for ensuring the protection of the rights and freedoms in respect of the processing of employees’ personal data in the employment context within the meaning of Article 88(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679, a provision must meet the requirements imposed on such rules by Article 88(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679?










2.


If a national rule clearly does not meet the requirements under Article 88(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC, can it nevertheless remain applicable?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).
Case C-706/19 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 — CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA, Coopbox Eastern s.r.o.v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Retail food packaging market — Appeal directed against the grounds — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, foodstuff, packaging, restriction on competition, retail trade








C_2021138EN.01001401.xml










19.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/14






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 January 2021 — CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA, Coopbox Eastern s.r.o.v European Commission
(Case C-706/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Appeal directed against the grounds - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
(2021/C 138/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA, Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. (represented initially by: S. Bariatti, E. Cucchiara and A. Cutrupi, avvocati, and subsequently by E. Cucchiara, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Rossi and T. Vecchi, and subsequently by P. Rossi, G. Conte and C. Sjödin, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


CCPL — Consorzio Cooperative di Produzione e Lavoro SC, Coopbox group SpA and Coopbox Eastern s.r.o. are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.
Case T-16/20: Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Hub Culture v EUIPO — PayPal (VEN)
Date: 2021-01-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, electronic mail, financial transaction, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, virtual currency








C_2021088EN.01004602.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/46






Order of the General Court of 20 January 2021 — Hub Culture v EUIPO — PayPal (VEN)
(Case T-16/20) (1)

(2021/C 88/62)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Tenth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.