do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-144/21: Action brought on 11 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rimex Trading (UNK UNIK)
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021163EN.01004201.xml










3.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 163/42






Action brought on 11 March 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Rimex Trading (UNK UNIK)
(Case T-144/21)
(2021/C 163/54)
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: Rimex Trading (Sofía, Bulgaria)

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 European Union figurative mark UNK UNIK — Application for registration No 17 940 710

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 December 2020 in Case R 2889/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as in rejecting the opponent’s appeal, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting Opposition B 3 069 013 and granting EU trade mark No 17 940 710 UNK UNIK (figurative).










—


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





Pleas in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(2)(c) 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 82/07
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, hydrocarbon, market approval, marketing standard, solvent








C_2021082EN.01000701.xml










11.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/7






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 82/07)

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) 1385


4 March 2021


trichloroethylene (TCE)
EC No 201-167-4; CAS No 79-01-6


SPOLANA s.r.o., ul. Práce 657, 277 11 Neratovice, Czechia


REACH/21/2/0/R1


Extraction solvent in caprolactam production


21 April 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 C-112/20: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — M. A. v État belge (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 5 — Return decision — Father of a minor child who is a citizen of the European Union — Taking into account the best interests of the child at the time of the adoption of the return decision)
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: child of migrant, children's rights, family relationship, illegal migration, removal, return migration








C_2021182EN.01002002.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/20






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — M. A. v État belge
(Case C-112/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 5 - Return decision - Father of a minor child who is a citizen of the European Union - Taking into account the best interests of the child at the time of the adoption of the return decision)
(2021/C 182/28)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: M. A.

Defendant: État belge

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, read in conjunction with Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to take due account of the best interests of the child before adopting a return decision accompanied by an entry ban, even where the person to whom that decision is addressed is not a minor but his or her father.


(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Case C-591/20: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, contractual liability, damages, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, purchase, purchase price








C_2021289EN.01003201.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/32






Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Reprensus GmbH v S-V Pavlovi Trejd EOOD
(Case C-591/20) (1)

(2021/C 289/47)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Case C-162/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2021 — Pesticide Action Network Europe ASBL, Nature et Progrès Belgique ASBL, TN v État belge, represented by the Ministre des Classes moyennes, des Indépendants, des P.M.E., de l’Agriculture et de l’Intégration sociale, chargé des Grandes villes
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: market approval, plant health control, plant health product, seed








C_2021242EN.01000601.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/6






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 11 March 2021 — Pesticide Action Network Europe ASBL, Nature et Progrès Belgique ASBL, TN v État belge, represented by the Ministre des Classes moyennes, des Indépendants, des P.M.E., de l’Agriculture et de l’Intégration sociale, chargé des Grandes villes
(Case C-162/21)
(2021/C 242/08)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Pesticide Action Network Europe ASBL, Nature et Progrès Belgique ASBL, TN

Defendant: État belge, represented by the Ministre des Classes moyennes, des Indépendants, des P.M.E., de l’Agriculture et de l’Intégration sociale, chargé des Grandes villes

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 53 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (1) to be interpreted as allowing a Member State to grant, in certain circumstances, an authorisation for the treatment, sale or sowing of seeds treated with plant protection products?










2.


If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can the aforementioned Article 53 be applied, in certain circumstances, to plant protection products containing active substances the marketing or use of which is restricted or prohibited in the territory of the European Union?










3.


Do the ‘special circumstances’ required by Article 53 of the aforementioned regulation cover situations in which the occurrence of a danger is not certain but only plausible?










4.


Do the ‘special circumstances’ required by Article 53 of the aforementioned regulation cover situations in which the occurrence of a danger is foreseeable, common and even cyclical?










5.


Is the expression ‘which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means’, as used in Article 53 of the regulation, to be interpreted as giving equal importance, in the light of the wording of recital 8 of the regulation, on the one hand, to ensuring a high level of protection of both human and animal health and the environment and, on the other hand, to safeguarding the competitiveness of Community agriculture?






(1)  OJ 2009 L 309, p. 1.
NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION 2021/C 82/10
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: European Personnel Selection Office
Subjects: administrator, chemical product, chemicals legislation, competition (EU), job vacancy, recruitment








C_2021082EN.01001101.xml










11.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/11






NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
(2021/C 82/10)
The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:
EPSO/AD/390/21 – ADMINISTRATORS (AD 6) IN THE FIELD OF CHEMICALS POLICY
The competition notice is published in 24 languages in 
Official Journal of the European Union C 82 A of 11 March 2021.
Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/
Case C-802/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Firma Z v Finanzamt Y (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 90(1) — Reduction of the taxable amount — Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) — Supplies of medicinal products — Granting of discounts — Hypothetical nature of the question referred — Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, discount sale, establishment, insurance company, pharmaceutical product, pharmacy, tax relief








C_2021182EN.01001501.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/15






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Firma Z v Finanzamt Y
(Case C-802/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 90(1) - Reduction of the taxable amount - Principles laid down in the judgment of 24 October 1996, Elida Gibbs (C-317/94, EU:C:1996:400) - Supplies of medicinal products - Granting of discounts - Hypothetical nature of the question referred - Inadmissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling)
(2021/C 182/20)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Firma Z

Defendant: Finanzamt Y

Operative part of the judgment

Article 90(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 pharmacy established in one Member State may not reduce its taxable amount where it carries out intra-Community supplies of pharmaceutical products, those supplies being exempt from value added tax in that Member State, to a statutory health insurance fund established in another Member State and it grants a discount to those persons covered by that insurance.


(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10160 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Nippon Telegraph and Telephoe Corporation/Industry One JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 90/02
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, consultancy, economic concentration, international trade, merger control, provision of services, software, telecommunications








C_2021090EN.01000201.xml










17.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 90/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10160 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Nippon Telegraph and Telephoe Corporation/Industry One JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 90/02)
On 11 March 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 32021M10160. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-426/20: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2021 — Techniplan v Commission (Action for annulment and for damages — EDF — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to comply with procedural requirements — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: admissibility, audit, debt, infringement of EU law, principle of legal certainty, transparency in decision-making








C_2021182EN.01005401.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/54






Order of the General Court of 11 March 2021 — Techniplan v Commission
(Case T-426/20) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - EDF - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Failure to comply with procedural requirements - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 182/73)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Techniplan Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: R. Giuffrida and A. Bonavita, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU seeking, seemingly, the annulment of the Commission’s email of 28 May 2020 and accompanying debit note and, second, application seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as inadmissible.










2.


Techniplan Srl shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Case C-812/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial v Skatteverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 9 — Taxable person — Concept — Article 11 — VAT group — Principal establishment and branch of a company situated in two different Member States — Principal establishment forming part of a VAT group to which the branch does not belong — Principal establishment providing services to the branch and imputing to it the costs of those services)
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, VAT, branch, provision of services, taxpayer








C_2021182EN.01001502.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/15






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial v Skatteverket
(Case C-812/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 9 - Taxable person - Concept - Article 11 - VAT group - Principal establishment and branch of a company situated in two different Member States - Principal establishment forming part of a VAT group to which the branch does not belong - Principal establishment providing services to the branch and imputing to it the costs of those services)
(2021/C 182/21)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Danske Bank A/S, Danmark, Sverige Filial

Defendant: Skatteverket

Operative part of the judgment

Article 9(1) and Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, for value added tax (VAT) purposes, the principal establishment of a company, situated in a Member State and forming part of a VAT group formed on the basis of Article 11, and the branch of that company, established in another Member State, must be regarded as separate taxable persons where that principal establishment provides that branch with services and imputes the costs thereof to the branch.


(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2021/C 82/08
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic, private-sector liquidity, tourism








C_2021082EN.01000801.xml










11.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/8






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2021/C 82/08)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


3 December 2020




Case No


85815




Decision No


143/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


COVID-19 Amendments and prolongation of the liquidity support grant scheme for undertakings in the tourism sector




Legal basis


The national legal basis is a Parliamentary Decision, authorising the amendments and prolongation, and a letter of additional assignment to Innovation Norway from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Fisheries, setting out the guidelines for grants and the administration of the scheme




Type of measure


Scheme




Objective


Providing access to liquidity for undertakings facing a sudden shortage of liquidity due to the impact on the economy of the COVID-19 outbreak. Costs related to planned activities will form the basis for the grant




Form of aid


Grants




Budget


NOK 550 million




Intensity


Up to 80 % of the eligible costs may be covered for small and medium sized businesses. Up to 70 % of the eligible costs may be covered for large enterprises. The costs for tangible and intangible assets necessary for project implementation can only be covered up to a maximum of 20 %




Duration


3.12.2020 – 30.6.2021




Economic sectors


NACE 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 74.903, 77, 79, 82.3, 90, 91 and 93




Name and address of the granting authority







Innovation Norway




Akersgata 13




N-0104 Oslo




NORWAY




Pb. 448 Sentrum








The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/
Case T-162/20: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2021 — UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v EFSA
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: confidentiality, disclosure of information, health risk, legality, market approval, pesticide, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, trade information








C_2021182EN.01006701.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/67






Order of the General Court of 11 March 2021 — UPL Europe and Indofil Industries (Netherlands) v EFSA
(Case T-162/20) (1)

(2021/C 182/91)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 201, 15.6.2020.
Case C-400/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2021 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 34 TFEU — Selling prices of agri-food products — Minimal profit margins to be applied in the retail trade of those products)
Date: 2021-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for failure to fulfil an obligation, agricultural product, foodstuff, infringement procedure (EU), measure having equivalent effect, minimum price, principle of proportionality, restriction on competition, supplier








C_2021182EN.01000601.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/6






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2021 — European Commission v Hungary
(Case C-400/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 34 TFEU - Selling prices of agri-food products - Minimal profit margins to be applied in the retail trade of those products)
(2021/C 182/07)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos, X. Lewis and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented initially by M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and Zs. Wagner, and subsequently by M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Orders that, by adopting Paragraph 3(2)(u) of the mezőgazdasági és élelmiszeripari termékek vonatkozásában a beszállítókkal szemben alkalmazott tisztességtelen forgalmazói magatartás tilalmáról szóló 2009. évi XCV. törvény (Law No XCV of 2009 prohibiting unfair trading practices applied against suppliers of agricultural and food products) and by thus restricting the way in which the selling prices of agricultural and food products are formed, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007;










2.


Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission






(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.