do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-361/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — De Ruiter vof v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Support scheme for farmers — Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 — Article 97(1) and Article 99(1) — Direct payments — Reductions and exclusions in the event of non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules — Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to calculate the percentage reduction — Proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 — Article 73(4), first subparagraph, point (a))
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU direct payments, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality, rural development, sanction (EU), single payment scheme








C_2021088EN.01000801.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/8






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 January 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Netherlands) — De Ruiter vof v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
(Case C-361/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Support scheme for farmers - Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 - Article 97(1) and Article 99(1) - Direct payments - Reductions and exclusions in the event of non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules - Determination of the year to be taken into account in order to calculate the percentage reduction - Proportionate, effective and dissuasive penalties - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 - Article 73(4), first subparagraph, point (a))
(2021/C 88/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: De Ruiter vof

Defendants: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Operative part of the judgment

The first subparagraph of Article 97(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 99(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, and Article 73(4), first subparagraph, point (a) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1306/2013 with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance must be interpreted as meaning that reductions of direct payments due to non-compliance with the cross-compliance rules must be calculated on the basis of the payments granted or to be granted in the year in which such non-compliance occurred.


(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.
Case C-46/21 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2021 by European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-735/18, Aquind v ACER
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: France, United Kingdom, electrical energy, energy grid, energy transport, legal expenses








C_2021098EN.01001701.xml










22.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/17






Appeal brought on 27 January 2021 by European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-735/18, Aquind v ACER
(Case C-46/21 P)
(2021/C 98/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Union Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER) (represented by: P. Martinet, E. Tremmel, Agents, B. Creve, advokat)

Other party to the proceedings: Aquind Ltd

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in whole or in part;










—


if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded;










—


in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;










—


order Aquind Ltd to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the General Court upheld the applicant's fourth plea and ninth plea and, on that basis, annulled Decision A-001-2018 of the Board of Appeal of ACER, dismissed the remainder of the application, and ordered ACER to pay the costs. In the present appeal, ACER submits that the General Court committed the following errors of law:






1.


The General Court erred in law with regard to the intensity of the review undertaken by the Board of Appeal of ACER, in general and in the case at hand, with regard to errors in complex technical and economic assessments.










2.


The General Court erred in law with regard to the interpretation of Article 17(1)(b) of Regulation 714/2009. (1)







(1)  Règlement (CE) no 714/2009 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 13 juillet 2009 sur les conditions d’accès au réseau pour les échanges transfrontaliers d’électricité et abrogeant le règlement (CE) no 1228/2003 (OJ 2009, L 211, p. 15).
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers (codification)’ (COM(2020) 739 final — 2020/0329 (COD))
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU Member State, codification of EU law, crew, maritime safety, maritime shipping, professional qualifications, recognition of vocational training qualifications, ship's flag, vessel, vocational training








C_2021123EN.01008001.xml










9.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/80






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the minimum level of training of seafarers (codification)’
(COM(2020) 739 final — 2020/0329 (COD))
(2021/C 123/13)






Referrals


European Parliament, 23.11.2020
Council of the European Union, 27.11.2020




Legal basis


Article 100(2) and Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society




Adopted at plenary


27.1.2021




Plenary session No


557




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


unanimous




Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 557th plenary session of 27 and 28 January 2021 (meeting of 27 January), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 27 January 2021.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters’ (COM(2020) 830 final — 2020/0366 COD)
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU waters, United Kingdom, exchange of information, fishery management, fishing fleet, fishing industry, fishing permit, international waters, ship's flag, withdrawal from the EU








C_2021123EN.01008501.xml










9.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/85






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 as regards fishing authorisations for Union fishing vessels in United Kingdom waters and fishing operations of United Kingdom fishing vessels in Union waters’
(COM(2020) 830 final — 2020/0366 COD)
(2021/C 123/18)






Referral


European Parliament, 14.12.2020
Council, 11.12.2020




Legal basis


Article 43(2) and Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment




Adopted at plenary


27.1.2021




Plenary session No


557




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


unanimous in favour




Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 557th plenary session of 27 and 28 January 2021 (meeting of 27 January), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 27 January 2021.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG
Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries 2021/C 30/06
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU waters, English Channel, France, catch area, catch by species, catch quota, fishing rights, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2021030EN.01000601.xml










27.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 30/6






Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries
(2021/C 30/06)
In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Union control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:






Date and time of closure



16 December 2020





Duration



16 December 2020 – 31 December 2020





Member State



France





Stock or Group of stocks



RJU/7DE.





Species



Undulate ray (raja undulata)





Zone



Union waters of 7d and 7e





Type(s) of fishing vessels



---





Reference number



32/TQ123







(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.
Case T-57/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Hungary v Commission
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria, financial aid, single payment scheme








C_2021088EN.01004301.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/43






Action brought on 27 January 2021 — Hungary v Commission
(Case T-57/21)
(2021/C 88/57)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1734 of 18 November 2020 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (1) in so far as it concerns Hungary and excludes area-related aid for the financial year 2018 from EU funding because an insufficient number of on-the-spot checks were carried out.










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.
According to the applicant, the Commission misinterpreted the phrase ‘the competent authority shall appropriately increase the percentage of beneficiaries to be checked on-the-spot in the following year’ in Article 35 of Implementing Regulation No 809/2014 (2) and, on the basis of that misinterpretation, developed a wrongful practice. In the applicant’s view, the exclusion is based on the fact that, in its working documents, the Commission considers itself bound by an interpretation that is technically incorrect and not in accordance with that provision of the regulation.
By adopting the working documents, the Commission effectively deprived the Member States of their power to determine for themselves the percentage of additional beneficiaries that they consider should be subjected to on-the-spot checks. The contested exclusion is unlawful because, contrary to the provisions of the regulation, the Commission specifically determines, using a specific calculation method, the only figure for the increase in the percentage of checks considered acceptable. Furthermore, that determination lacks a technical basis, as the Commission does not take into account the differences between the Member States’ checks and their efficiency.


(1)  OJ 2020 L 390, p. 10.

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ 2014 L 227, p. 69).
Case C-42/21 P: Appeal brought on 27 January 2021 by Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-814/17, Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, Latvia, Lithuania, carriage of goods, control of restrictive practices, dominant position, public sector, rail network, sanction (EU)








C_2021098EN.01001601.xml










22.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 98/16






Appeal brought on 27 January 2021 by Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 18 November 2020 in Case T-814/17, Lietuvos geležinkeliai v Commission
(Case C-42/21 P)
(2021/C 98/16)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB (represented by: W. Deselaers, K. Apel, P. Kirst, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Orlen Lietuva AB

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal, in whole or in part, in so far as the judgment dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment against the Commission Decision C(2017) 6544 final of 2 October 2017 in Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail (1);










—


annul the Decision, in whole or in part;










—


in the alternative, annul or further reduce the fine imposed on Lietuvos geležinkeliai; and










—


order the Commission to pay all costs related to the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant bases its appeal on four grounds.
First, the General Court has incorrectly interpreted and as a result incorrectly applied the Court’s jurisprudence by which a dominant undertaking only needs to grant access to an infrastructure if the refusal is likely to eliminate all competition on the market on the part of the person requesting access, if such refusal is incapable of being objectively justified, and if the access in itself is indispensable to carrying on that person’s business.
Second, the removal of a 19 kilometre rail track connecting Mažeikiai in north-western Lithuania with the Latvian border (the ‘Track’) ‘in great haste and without having first secured the necessary funds’ does not constitute an abuse of a dominant position.
Third, the General Court committed an error of law in qualifying the removal of the Track as capable of restricting competition.
Fourth, the General Court contradicted itself by referring to appellant’s allegedly anticompetitive intent for the purpose of determining whether a fine should be imposed and for the purpose of assessing the level of fine, despite having found that the alleged infringement is not based on the appellant’s intent, anticompetitive strategy or bad faith.


(1)  Summary of Commission Decision of 2 October 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Case AT.39813 — Baltic Rail) (notified under document number C(2017) 6544) (OJ 2017, C 383, p. 7).
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the COVID-19 outbreak concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations and the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation, for reference periods subsequent to those referred to in Regulation (EU) 2020/698’ (COM(2021) 25 final — 2021/0012 (COD))
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: coronavirus disease, epidemic, inland waterway transport, maritime safety, professional qualifications, rail transport, road transport, traffic regulations, transport regulations, vocational training








C_2021123EN.01008401.xml










9.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 123/84






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific and temporary measures in view of the COVID-19 outbreak concerning the renewal or extension of certain certificates, licences and authorisations and the postponement of certain periodic checks and periodic training in certain areas of transport legislation, for reference periods subsequent to those referred to in Regulation (EU) 2020/698’
(COM(2021) 25 final — 2021/0012 (COD))
(2021/C 123/17)






Referrals


Council of the European Union, 28.1.2021
European Parliament, 8.2.2021




Legal basis


Articles 91, 100(2) and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society




Adopted at plenary


27.1.2021




Plenary session No


557




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


unanimous




Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided unanimously, at its 557th plenary session of 27 and 28 January 2021 (meeting of 27 January), to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 27 January 2021.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG
Case T-817/19: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO — OmniVision (Hydrovision) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Hydrovision — Earlier EU word mark Hylo-Vision — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01002801.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/28






Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Olimp Laboratories v EUIPO — OmniVision (Hydrovision)
(Case T-817/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Hydrovision - Earlier EU word mark Hylo-Vision - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 88/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Olimp Laboratories sp. z o.o. (Dębica, Poland) (represented by: M. Kondrat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: OmniVision GmbH (Puchheim, Germany) (represented by: B. Sorg, D. Wiedemann and M. Ringer, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 September 2019 (Case R 2371/2018 2), relating to opposition proceedings between OmniVision and Olimp Laboratories.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Olimp Laboratories sp z o.o. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Case T-48/21: Action brought on 27 January 2021– Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (Lieblingsmensch)
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, decorative item, floor coverings, furniture industry, household article, registered trade mark, textile product, toiletries, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01004102.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/41






Action brought on 27 January 2021– Cepewa v EUIPO — Out of the blue (Lieblingsmensch)
(Case T-48/21)
(2021/C 88/55)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Cepewa GmbH (Karben, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany)

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 Lieblingsmensch — EU trade mark No 16 581 332

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 November 2020 in Case R 917/2020-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(a) and (b) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Regulation No (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the first sentence of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-287/20: Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (EGGY FOOD) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark EGGY FOOD — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-01-27
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cereal product, confectionery, confectionery product, dietary product, egg, non-alcoholic beverage, protein products, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021088EN.01003002.xml










15.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 88/30






Judgment of the General Court of 27 January 2021 — Eggy Food v EUIPO (EGGY FOOD)
(Case T-287/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark EGGY FOOD - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 88/40)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Eggy Food GmbH & Co. KG (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 March 2020 (Case R 1316/2019-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign EGGY FOOD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Eggy Food GmbH & Co KG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 6.7.2020.