do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-154/21: Action brought on 23 March 2021 — Saure v Commission
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, coronavirus disease, delivery, epidemic, reprography, vaccine








C_2021189EN.01002001.xml










17.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/20






Action brought on 23 March 2021 — Saure v Commission
(Case T-154/21)
(2021/C 189/22)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Hans-Wilhelm Saure (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: C. Partsch, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the Commission’s decision refusing to grant the applicant’s request to access Commission documents, reference GestDem 2021/0592, through the issuing of copies of
all minutes, summaries, memoranda, notes, files from meetings, negotiations, decisions, proposals, transcripts, emails, letters, records of telephone calls — in particular regarding advance purchase agreements — and specific contracts with pharmaceutical companies for the delivery of COVID-19 vaccines to combat the COVID-19 pandemic drawn up by the ‘Steering Committee’ and ‘Joint Negotiations Team’. By ‘advance purchase agreements’ we understand every contract for the purchase, delivery, securing, reservation, or development of COVID-19 vaccines for EU Member States.










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law: The applicant claims that he is entitled to access the European Commission documents at issue in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001. (1) The Commission’s refusal to grant access infringes that provision.










2.


Second plea in law: It is submitted that none of the grounds for exclusion set out in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 is applicable to the applicant’s right of access. The Commission has not submitted any grounds for exclusion and none is apparent.






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL on the withdrawal of the Commission Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of a Protocol amending the Agreement on the international occasional carriage of passengers by coach and bus (Interbus Agreement) by extending the possibility of accession to the Kingdom of Morocco (COM(2020) 770 final of 30.11.2020) and the Commission Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol amending the Agreement on the international occasional carriage of passengers by coach and bus (Interbus Agreement) by extending the possibility of accession to the Kingdom of Morocco (COM(2020) 769 final of 30.11.2020)
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Morocco, agreement (EU), bus, carriage of passengers, international agreement, international transport, proposal (EU)

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 23.3.2021  COM(2021) 134 final  COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL   on the withdrawal of     the Commission Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of a Protocol amending the Agreement on the international occasional carriage of passengers by coach and bus (Interbus Agreement) by extending the possibility of accession to the Kingdom of Morocco (COM(2020) 770 final of 30.11.2020)     and    the Commission Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Protocol amending the Agreement on the international occasional carriage of passengers by coach and bus (Interbus Agreement) by extending the possibility of accession to the Kingdom of Morocco (COM(2020) 769 final of 30.11.2020)     
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

The Commission hereby informs the Council that it is withdrawing two proposals submitted 
on 30 November 2020 to the Council as follows: 

  Commission  Proposal  for  a  Council  Decision  on  the  signing,  on  behalf  of  the 
European  Union,  of  a  Protocol  amending  the  Agreement  on  the  international 
occasional  carriage  of  passengers  by  coach  and  bus  (Interbus  Agreement)  by 
extending the possibility of accession to  the Kingdom  of Morocco (COM(2020) 770 
final); 

  Commission  Proposal  for  a  Council  Decision  on  the  conclusion,  on  behalf  of  the 
European  Union,  of  the  Protocol  amending  the  Agreement  on  the  international 
occasional  carriage  of  passengers  by  coach  and  bus  (Interbus  Agreement)  by 
extending the possibility of accession to  the Kingdom  of Morocco (COM(2020) 769 
final). 

The reason for these withdrawals is that the Kingdom of Morocco indicated by Note Verbale 
of  8  January  2021,  that  it  would  not  be  ready  to  sign  and  conclude  the  above-mentioned 
Protocol. 

Therefore, the proposals have become superfluous and should be withdrawn.
Case C-180/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 March 2021 — VS v Inspektor v Inspektorata kam Visshia sadeben savet
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, civil proceedings, data protection, data-processing law, fight against crime, natural person, offence, personal data, public prosecutor's department








C_2021206EN.01001901.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 23 March 2021 — VS v Inspektor v Inspektorata kam Visshia sadeben savet
(Case C-180/21)
(2021/C 206/24)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: VS

Defendant: Inspektor v Inspektorata kam Visshia sadeben savet

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 1(1) of [Directive 2016/680] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, when stating the objectives of that directive, the terms ‘prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences’ are listed as aspects of a general objective?










2.


Are the provisions of [Regulation 2016/679] (2) applicable to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria in view of the fact that information concerning a person, which was collected by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in its capacity as ‘controller’ pursuant to point 8 of Article 3 of [Directive 2016/680], in an investigation file opened in relation to that person with a view to verifying indications of a criminal offence, was used in the context of the judicial defence of the Public Prosecutor’s Office as a party to civil proceedings — by virtue of the fact that the circumstance of that file having been opened was revealed or that the contents of the file were presented?










2.1


If that question is answered in the affirmative:
Is the expression ‘legitimate interests’ in Article 6(1)(f) of [Regulation 2016/679] to be interpreted as including the disclosure, in whole or in part, of information concerning a person which has been collected in a public prosecution investigation file opened in relation to that person for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, in the case where that disclosure is carried out for the purposes of the defence of the controller as a party to civil proceedings, and does that expression exclude the consent of the data subject?






(1)  OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89.

(2)  OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1.
Case C-183/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2021 — Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG v Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil proceedings, proof, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021228EN.01002102.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2021 — Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG v Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG
(Case C-183/21)
(2021/C 228/28)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG

Question referred

Are Directive 2008/95/EC, (1) in particular in Article 12, and
Directive (EU) 2015/2436, (2) in particular in Articles 16, 17 and 19,
to be interpreted as meaning that the effet utile of those provisions prohibits an interpretation of national procedural law which






1.


imposes on the applicant in civil proceedings for cancellation of a national registered trade mark on grounds of revocation for non-use a burden of raising and presenting an issue, as distinguished from the burden of proof; and










2.


requires the applicant, in the context of that burden of raising and presenting an issue,






a.


to make, in such proceedings, substantiated submissions regarding the defendant’s non-use of the trade mark, to the extent that it is possible for the applicant to do so; and










b.


to carry out, for that purpose, its own research into the market, in a manner which is appropriate to the request for cancellation and to the specific nature of the trade mark concerned.










(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

(2)  Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1).
Case C-179/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2021 — absoluts-bikes and more- GmbH & Co. KG v the-trading-company GmbH
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, consumer information, producer's liability








C_2021242EN.01000801.xml










21.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 242/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2021 — absoluts-bikes and more- GmbH & Co. KG v the-trading-company GmbH
(Case C-179/21)
(2021/C 242/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: absoluts-bikes and more- GmbH & Co. KG

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: the-trading-company GmbH

Questions referred







1.


Does the mere existence of a manufacturer’s guarantee trigger the information requirement under Article 6(1)(m) of Directive 2011/83/EU? (1)











2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the information requirement under Article 6(1)(m) of Directive 2011/83 triggered by the mere mention of a manufacturer’s guarantee in the trader’s offering or is it triggered only if the mention of such a guarantee is readily apparent to the consumer? Is there also an information requirement if it is readily apparent to the consumer that the trader provides access to only the manufacturer’s information concerning the guarantee?










3.


Must the information on the existence and conditions of a manufacturer’s guarantee as required under Article 6(1)(m) of Directive 2011/83 contain the same details as a guarantee under Article 6(2) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (2) or are fewer details sufficient?






(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).

(2)  OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12.
Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/481 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/478 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses 2021/C 99/02
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, human rights, international sanctions, legal person, natural person








C_2021099EN.01000201.xml










23.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/2






Notice for the attention of persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/481 and in Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/478 concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses
(2021/C 99/02)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/481 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) 2020/1998 (3) as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/478 (4), concerning restrictive measures against serious human rights violations and abuses.
The Council of the European Union has decided that those persons should be included on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999 and Regulation (EU) 2020/1998. 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 (EU) 2020/1998, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council before 31 October 2021, together with supporting documentation that the decision to include them on the abovementioned 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 10 of Decision (CFSP) 2020/1999, of the list of designated persons and entities.


(1)  OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 99 I, 22.3.2021, p. 25.

(3)  OJ L 410 I, 7.12.2020, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 99 I, 22.3.2021, p. 1.
Case T-156/21: Action brought on 23 March 2021 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Marker Völkl)
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021182EN.01006501.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/65






Action brought on 23 March 2021 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Marker Völkl)
(Case T-156/21)
(2021/C 182/88)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) GmbH (Baar, Switzerland)

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: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark Marker Völkl — International registration designating the European Union No W00891106

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2021 in Case R 0055/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the earlier appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-155/21: Action brought on 23 March 2021 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Völkl)
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2021182EN.01006401.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/64






Action brought on 23 March 2021 — Völkl v EUIPO — Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) (Völkl)
(Case T-155/21)
(2021/C 182/87)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Völkl GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: C. Raßmann, M. Suether and F. Adinolfi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marker Dalbello Völkl (International) GmbH (Baar, Switzerland)

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: EU figurative mark Völkl — EU trade mark No 4 467 569

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2021 in Case R 568/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the earlier appeal proceedings.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-28/20: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda tingsrätt — Sweden) — Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System SAS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Pilots’ strike organised within a legal framework — Circumstances that are ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to the operating air carrier’s activity — Articles 16, 17 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — No impairment of the air carrier’s freedom to conduct a business, right to property and right of negotiation)
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carrier, indemnification, ownership, strike, trade union, traveller








C_2021189EN.01000402.xml










17.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/4






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Attunda tingsrätt — Sweden) — Airhelp Ltd v Scandinavian Airlines System SAS
(Case C-28/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Pilots’ strike organised within a legal framework - Circumstances that are ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to the operating air carrier’s activity - Articles 16, 17 and 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - No impairment of the air carrier’s freedom to conduct a business, right to property and right of negotiation)
(2021/C 189/05)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Attunda tingsrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Airhelp Ltd

Defendant: Scandinavian Airlines System SAS

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that strike action which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier, in compliance with the conditions laid down by national legislation, in particular the notice period imposed by it, which is intended to assert the demands of that carrier’s workers and which is followed by a category of staff essential for operating a flight does not fall within the concept of an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 85, 23.3.2020.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 22 March 2021 2021/C 99/07
Date: 2021-03-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021099EN.01000801.xml










23.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 99/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

22 March 2021
(2021/C 99/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1926 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,77 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4360 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86233 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1580 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1023 




ISK


Iceland króna


151,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,1393 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,075 




HUF


Hungarian forint


366,90 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,6017 




RON


Romanian leu


4,8862 




TRY


Turkish lira


9,4097 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5400 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4903 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,2614 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6617 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5992 




KRW


South Korean won


1 344,78 




ZAR


South African rand


17,5657 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7582 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5740 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 176,42 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,9064 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,843 




RUB


Russian rouble


88,9011 




THB


Thai baht


36,816 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,5917 




MXN


Mexican peso


24,6337 




INR


Indian rupee


86,2895 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.