do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-51/21: Action brought on 26 January 2021 — About You v EUIPO — Safe-1 Immobilieninvest (Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U)
Date: 2021-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cultural event, education, footwear industry, furniture industry, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2021098EN.01003201.xml










22.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/32






Action brought on 26 January 2021 — About You v EUIPO — Safe-1 Immobilieninvest (Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U)
(Case T-51/21)
(2021/C 98/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: About You GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Safe-1 Immobilieninvest GmbH (Mauer, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U — European Union trade mark No 10 226 918

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2020 in Case R 530/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


hold an oral hearing;










—


annul the contested decision with the consequence that EUIPO shall revoke the EUTM entirely;










—


order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear its/their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceeding before the General Court and in the appellate proceeding before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the requirements of evidence in terms of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations;










—


Infringement of Article 58 (in connection with Article 18) and Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and respectively in connection with Articles 10, 19 and 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Case T-50/21: Action brought on 26 January 2021 — About You v EUIPO — Safe-1 Immobilieninvest (Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U)
Date: 2021-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, cultural event, education, footwear industry, furniture industry, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, sporting event, trade-mark law








C_2021098EN.01003101.xml










22.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/31






Action brought on 26 January 2021 — About You v EUIPO — Safe-1 Immobilieninvest (Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U)
(Case T-50/21)
(2021/C 98/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: About You GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Safe-1 Immobilieninvest GmbH (Mauer, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Y/O/U YOUR ORIGINAL U — European Union trade mark No 10 226 901

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2020 in Case R 529/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


hold an oral hearing;










—


annul the contested decision with the consequence that EUIPO shall revoke the EUTM entirely;










—


order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear its/their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceeding before the General Court and in the appellate proceeding before EUIPO.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the requirements of evidence in terms of legal certainty and the principle of legitimate expectations;










—


Infringement of Article 58 (in connection with Article 18) and Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and respectively in connection with Articles 10, 19 and 27 of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 25 January 2021 2021/C 29/02
Date: 2021-01-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021029EN.01000201.xml










26.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

25 January 2021
(2021/C 29/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,2152 




JPY


Japanese yen


126,06 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4406 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88800 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,0625 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0772 




ISK


Iceland króna


157,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,3478 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,080 




HUF


Hungarian forint


357,33 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5409 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8744 




TRY


Turkish lira


8,9865 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5728 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5459 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,4199 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6854 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6124 




KRW


South Korean won


1 340,18 




ZAR


South African rand


18,4930 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8712 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5665 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 108,31 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9149 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,427 




RUB


Russian rouble


91,6732 




THB


Thai baht


36,438 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,6434 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,2927 




INR


Indian rupee


88,6300 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-40/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 26 January 2021 — T.A.C. v ANI
Date: 2021-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: conflict of interest, criminal proceedings, exclusion from public-sector employment, offence, penalty, principle of proportionality, public office, right to justice, right to work








C_2021289EN.01002101.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Timișoara (Romania) lodged on 26 January 2021 — T.A.C. v ANI
(Case C-40/21)
(2021/C 289/29)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Timișoara

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: T.A.C.

Defendant: ANI

Questions referred







1.


Is the principle of the proportionality of penalties, enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as also applying to facts other than those which are formally defined as criminal offences under national law, but which may be regarded as ‘criminal charges’ within the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in the light of the criteria developed by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular the criterion of the severity of the penalty, as in the case in the main proceedings in so far as concerns the appraisal of conflicts of interests which may result in the application of an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years?










2.


In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the principle of the proportionality of penalties, enshrined in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national implementing law pursuant to which, in the case where a person holding an elective public office is found to have acted under a conflict of interests, an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years applies automatically, by operation of law, without there being any possibility of imposing a penalty that is proportionate to the infringement committed?










3.


Are the right to engage in work, guaranteed by Article 15(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, to be interpreted a precluding a provision of national implementing law pursuant to which, in the case where a person holding an elective public office is found to have acted under a conflict of interests, an additional penalty consisting in a prohibition on holding elective public office for a period of three years applies automatically, by operation of law, without there being any possibility of imposing a penalty that is proportionate to the infringement committed?
Winding-up proceedings Winding-up proceedings in respect of Nederlandsche Algemene Maatschappij van Levensverzekering ‘Conservatrix’ N.V. (the ‘Company’) (Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II)) 2021/C 29/03
Date: 2021-01-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union, European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, insurance company, judicial proceedings, liquidation








C_2021029EN.01000301.xml










26.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/3






Winding-up proceedings
Winding-up proceedings in respect of Nederlandsche Algemene Maatschappij van Levensverzekering ‘Conservatrix’ N.V. (the ‘Company’)


(Publication made in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))


(2021/C 29/03)






Insurance undertaking


Nederlandsche Algemene Maatschappij van Levensverzekering ‘Conservatrix’ N.V.




Date, entry into force and nature of decision


8 December 2020




Competent authorities


Court of Amsterdam, delegated judges mr. M. de Vries and mr. A.E. de Vos




Supervisory authority


Court of Amsterdam, delegated judges mr. M. de Vries and mr. A.E. de Vos




Trustees appointed


mr. drs. W.J.M. van Andel and mr. E.L. Zetteler




Applicable law


Dutch Law
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10103 — Towerbrook/Consolis Rail Division) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 34/05
Date: 2021-01-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, engineering structure, investment company, merger control








C_2021034EN.01000501.xml










1.2.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 34/5






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10103 — Towerbrook/Consolis Rail Division)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 34/05)
On 26 January 2021, 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 32021M10103. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10049 — Partners Group/Atlantia/Telepass) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 29/05
Date: 2021-01-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, provision of services, transport infrastructure








C_2021029EN.01000601.xml










26.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 29/6






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10049 — Partners Group/Atlantia/Telepass)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 29/05)

1.   
On 18 January 2021, 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:






—


Partners Group AG (together with its affiliates, ‘Partners Group’, Switzerland),










—


Atlantia SpA (‘Atlantia’, Italy),










—


Telepass SpA (‘Telepass’, Italy), currently solely controlled by Atlantia (Italy)




Partners Group and Atlantia acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Telepass.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for Partners Group: global private investment management company active in the areas of private equity, private real estate, private infrastructure and private debt;










—


for Atlantia: holding company active mainly in the toll motorway and airport infrastructure sectors in Italy, Spain, France and, to a limited extent, Poland;










—


for Telepass: active mainly in the provision of electronic tolling services in Europe and, in particular, in Italy.






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.10049 — Partners Group/Atlantia/Telepass
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-46/21: Action brought on 26 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Yajun (PREMILITY)
Date: 2021-01-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household article, household electrical appliance, lighting equipment, plumbing equipment, registered trade mark, sports equipment, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01004001.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/40






Action brought on 26 January 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Yajun (PREMILITY)
(Case T-46/21)
(2021/C 88/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Liu Yajun (Shenzhen, China)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark PREMILITY — Application for registration No 17 899 016

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 November 2020 in Case R 881/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision, in so far as, by dismissing the opponent’s appeal, the Board thereby confirms the Opposition Division’s decision in opposition proceedings B 3 065 346 granting EU trade mark No 17 899 016 PREMILITY (figurative) for the goods in Classes 11, 21, 22 and 28 for which registration was sought;










—


order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 47(2) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council and of the case-law established in the judgment of 11 March 2003, C-40/01, Ansul, EU:C:2003:145.










—


Inconsistency of the decision with and, therefore, infringement of, the case-law established in the judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 June 2020 in Case C-115/19 P, China Construction Bank v EUIPO (C-115/19 P, EU:C:2020:469) and in the judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2020, Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO — MasterCard International (We IntelliGence the World and Others) (T-84/19 and T-88/19 to T - 98/19, EU:T:2020:231).
Case C-41/21 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2021 by Allergan Holdings France against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-664/19, Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)
Date: 2021-01-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021228EN.01001301.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/13






Appeal brought on 26 January 2021 by Allergan Holdings France against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-664/19, Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)
(Case C-41/21 P)
(2021/C 228/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Allergan Holdings France (represented by: T. de Haan, avocat, and J. Day, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Dermavita Co. Ltd
By order of 29 April 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Allergan Holdings France should bear its own costs.