do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-870/19 and C-871/19: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze v MI (C-870/19), TB (C-871/19) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Recording equipment in road transport — Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 — Article 15(7) — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Control proceedings — Administrative penalty — Failure to produce the record sheets for the tachograph relating to the current day and the previous 28 days — Single or multiple infringement)
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, driving period, road safety, road transport, traffic offence








C_2021189EN.01000301.xml










17.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/3






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze v MI (C-870/19), TB (C-871/19)
(Joined Cases C-870/19 and C-871/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Recording equipment in road transport - Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 - Article 15(7) - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Control proceedings - Administrative penalty - Failure to produce the record sheets for the tachograph relating to the current day and the previous 28 days - Single or multiple infringement)
(2021/C 189/03)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Prefettura Ufficio territoriale del governo di Firenze

Defendants: MI (C-870/19), TB (C-871/19)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(7) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 and Article 19 of Regulation No 561/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that, should the driver of a road transport vehicle subject to an inspection fail to produce the record sheets of the recording equipment relating to several days of activity during the period covering the day of the inspection and the previous 28 days, the competent authorities of the Member State where the inspection was carried out must make a finding of a single infringement by that driver and impose on him or her only a single penalty for that infringement.


(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Case T-374/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — KM v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Surviving spouse — Survivor’s pension — Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Conditions for eligibility — Duration of the marriage — Plea of illegality — Equal treatment — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, age discrimination, equal treatment, marriage, principle of proportionality, staff regulations (EU), survivor's benefit, widowed person








C_2021217EN.01004401.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/44






Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — KM v Commission
(Case T-374/20) (1)

(Civil Service - Officials - Surviving spouse - Survivor’s pension - Articles 18 and 20 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Conditions for eligibility - Duration of the marriage - Plea of illegality - Equal treatment - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Proportionality)
(2021/C 217/58)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: KM (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and T. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Windisch and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Alver, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s decision of 7 October 2019, refusing the request to grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant and, second, an order that the Commission adopt a new decision and grant a survivor’s pension to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 7 October 2019, refusing the request to grant a survivor’s pension to KM;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by KM;










4.


Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union each to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Case T-588/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Novomatic v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Power Stars) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark Power Stars — Partial revocation declaration — Partial lack of genuine use — Proof of genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) — Right to be heard — Article 75(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, computer equipment, gaming, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01004001.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/40






Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Novomatic v EUIPO — adp Gauselmann (Power Stars)
(Case T-588/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark Power Stars - Partial revocation declaration - Partial lack of genuine use - Proof of genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75(1), first sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), first sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001) - Right to be heard - Article 75(1), second sentence, of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94(1), second sentence, of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2021/C 217/51)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: M. Ringer, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the Court: adp Gauselmann GmbH (Espelkamp, Germany) (represented by: K. Mandel, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 2038/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between adp Gauselmann and Novomatic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.
Case T-798/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament (Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law — Error of fact — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, debt, financial interests of members, principle of proportionality, servant (EU)








C_2021217EN.01004002.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/40






Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament
(Case T-798/19) (1)

(Institutional law - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Error of law - Error of fact - Proportionality)
(2021/C 217/52)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Marseille, France) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers, J.-L. Teheux, M. Ganilsy and C. De Kuyper, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 16 September 2019 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 29 806 unduly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 19 September 2019 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Jean-Luc Bennahmias to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-306/19: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission (Action for annulment — Agricultural policy — Organic production — Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 — Production and labelling of organic products — Organic products imported into the European Union — Certification of products by a control body — No interest in bringing proceedings — Lack of direct concern — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, environmental industry, import (EU), organic certification, organic product, originating product, right to justice, rights of the defence, surveillance concerning imports, third country








C_2021206EN.01002402.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/24






Order of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Graanhandel P. van Schelven v Commission
(Case T-306/19) (1)

(Action for annulment - Agricultural policy - Organic production - Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 - Production and labelling of organic products - Organic products imported into the European Union - Certification of products by a control body - No interest in bringing proceedings - Lack of direct concern - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2021/C 206/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV (Nieuwe-Tonge, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Almeida, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, A. Dawes and B. Hofstötter, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Article 1(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/446 of 19 March 2019 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1235/2008 laying down detailed rules for implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 as regards the arrangements for imports of organic products from third countries (OJ 2019 L 77, p. 67), in so far as that provision, in conjunction with point 3 of Annex II to that implementing regulation, withdraws the recognition of Control Union Certifications as a competent body for carrying out controls and issuing certificates of inspection authorising the placing on the EU market, as organic products, of products imported from Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.










2.


There is no need to rule on the applications for measures of organisation of procedure and for the examination of witnesses submitted by Graanhandel P. van Schelven BV.










3.


Graanhandel P. van Schelven shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 280, 19.8.2019.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10180 — BH Holding/TEDi) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 129/05
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consumer goods, economic concentration, holding company, investment company, merger control, retail trade








C_2021129EN.01000901.xml










13.4.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 129/9






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10180 — BH Holding/TEDi)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 129/05)
On 24 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 German language 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 32021M10180. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10081— KION/Jungheinrich/HSP) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 102/06
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, hoisting equipment, iron and steel-working machinery, merger control








C_2021102EN.01001101.xml










24.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 102/11






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10081— KION/Jungheinrich/HSP)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 102/06)

1.   
On 15 March 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:






—


KION Group AG (‘KION’, Germany), controlled by Shandong Heavy Industry Group Co., Ltd., (‘SHIG’, China),










—


Jungheinrich AG (‘Jungheinrich’, Germany),










—


Hoesch Schwerter Profile GmbH (‘HSP’, Germany), belonging to Calvi Holding S.p.A. (Italy).




KION and Jungheinrich acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of parts of HSP.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of assets.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


for KION: manufacture and supply of forklift trucks, warehouse equipement and other industrial trucks, as well as related services. SHIG is a producer of commercial vehicles and construction machinery.










—


for Jungheinrich: manufacture, supply, refurbishment and rental of forklift trucks and warehouse equipement, as well as related services.










—


for HSP: manufacture and supply of special steel profiles used inter alia in the manufacturing of counterbalanced forklift trucks and warehouse equipment.






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.10081— KION/Jungheinrich/HSP
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-799/19: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament (Institutional law — Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament — Parliamentary assistance allowance — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Burden of proof — Obligation to state reasons — Error of law — Error of fact — Proportionality)
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, debt, financial interests of members, principle of proportionality, servant (EU)








C_2021217EN.01004101.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/41






Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Bennahmias v Parliament
(Case T-799/19) (1)

(Institutional law - Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parliament - Parliamentary assistance allowance - Recovery of sums unduly paid - Burden of proof - Obligation to state reasons - Error of law - Error of fact - Proportionality)
(2021/C 217/53)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Marseille, France) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers, J.-L. Teheux, M. Ganilsy and C. De Kuyper, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament of 16 September 2019 concerning the recovery from the applicant of a sum of EUR 15 105 unduly paid as parliamentary assistance allowance and the debit note of 19 September 2019 relating thereto.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Mr Jean-Luc Bennahmias to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament.






(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.
Case T-168/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Creaton South-East Europe v EUIPO — Henkel (CREATHERM) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CREATHERM — Earlier international word mark CERETHERM — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, building materials, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01004201.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/42






Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Creaton South-East Europe v EUIPO — Henkel (CREATHERM)
(Case T-168/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CREATHERM - Earlier international word mark CERETHERM - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 217/55)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Creaton South-East Europe Kft. (Lenti, Hungary) (represented by: J. Muyldermans and P. Maeyaert, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Henkel AG & Co. KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 January 2020 (Case R 1090/2019-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Henkel and Creaton South-East Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Creaton South-East Europe Kft. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 191, 8.6.2020.
Case C-950/19: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Directive 2006/43/EC — Statutory audit of annual and consolidated accounts — Article 22a(1)(a) — Recruitment of a statutory auditor by an audited entity — Waiting period — Prohibition on taking up a key management post in the audited entity — Infringement — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Expression ‘taking up a post’ — Scope — Conclusion of an employment contract with the audited entity — Independence of statutory auditors — External appearance)
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audit, auditing, financial control, management audit, work contract








C_2021189EN.01000401.xml










17.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 189/4






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought by A
(Case C-950/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2006/43/EC - Statutory audit of annual and consolidated accounts - Article 22a(1)(a) - Recruitment of a statutory auditor by an audited entity - Waiting period - Prohibition on taking up a key management post in the audited entity - Infringement - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Expression ‘taking up a post’ - Scope - Conclusion of an employment contract with the audited entity - Independence of statutory auditors - External appearance)
(2021/C 189/04)
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Helsingin hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

A

Intervening party: Patentti- ja rekisterihallituksen tilintarkastuslautakunta

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22a(1)(a) of Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC, as amended by Directive 2014/56/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 must be interpreted as meaning that a statutory auditor, such as a key audit partner, appointed by an audit firm in the context of a statutory audit engagement, must be regarded as holding a key management position in an audited entity, within the meaning of that provision, as soon as he or she concludes an employment contract with the latter relating to that post, even if he or she has not yet begun to actually perform his or her duties in that post.


(1)  OJ C 77, 9.3.2020.
Case T-93/20: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Albert Darboven Holding v EUIPO (WINDSOR-CASTLE) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark WINDSOR-CASTLE — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Laudatory character)
Date: 2021-03-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, bakery, coffee, confectionery product, instant product, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law








C_2021217EN.01004102.xml










7.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/41






Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2021 — Albert Darboven Holding v EUIPO (WINDSOR-CASTLE)
(Case T-93/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark WINDSOR-CASTLE - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Laudatory character)
(2021/C 217/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Albert Darboven Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Thünken, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer, A. Söder and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2019 (Case R 2448/2018-1) relating to an application for registration of the word mark WINDSOR-CASTLE as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 December 2019 (Case R 2448/2018-1);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.