do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-160/21: Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021206EN.01003101.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/31






Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Malpricht (APIRETAL)
(Case T-160/21)
(2021/C 206/39)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: T. González Martínez, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ingrid Malpricht (Ludwigshafen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark APIRETAL — European Union trade mark No 4 814 158

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 January 2021 in Case R 1004/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


uphold the present appeal;










—


revoke the defendant’s decision of 20 March 2020;










—


annul the contested decision of 20 January 2021;










—


revoke the cancellation for non-use the EUTM no. 4 814 158 ‘APERITAL’ in relation to contested goods in Class 5 while maintaining the registration of these goods (as well as to ‘pharmaceutical preparations’);










—


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





Pleas in law







—


Misinterpretation of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when examining the concept of genuine use of the contested mark of any of the contested goods;










—


Misinterpretation of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council when assessing the concept of the proper reason for non-use.
Case T-159/21: Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Bustos v EUIPO — Bicicletas Monty (motwi)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2021182EN.01006601.xml










10.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/66






Action brought on 25 March 2021 — Bustos v EUIPO — Bicicletas Monty (motwi)
(Case T-159/21)
(2021/C 182/89)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Dante Ricardo Bustos (Wenling, China) (represented by: A. Lorente Berges, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bicicletas Monty, SA (Sant Feliú de Llobregat, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for registration of the European Union figurative mark motwi — Application No 17 802 158

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2021 in Case R 289/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


grant the registration of the European Union mark No 17 802 158 motwi in respect of the goods applied for in Class 12 of the Nice Agreement;










—


order the defendants to pay the costs of the present proceedings.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-907/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Q-GmbH v Finanzamt Z (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2006/112/EC — Value added tax (VAT) — Exemptions — Article 135(1)(a) — Insurance transactions and related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents — Service supplied for an insurer, comprising different services — Categorisation as a single supply)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, insurance company, insurance contract, insurance occupation, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2021206EN.01001202.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 March 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Q-GmbH v Finanzamt Z
(Case C-907/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/112/EC - Value added tax (VAT) - Exemptions - Article 135(1)(a) - Insurance transactions and related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents - Service supplied for an insurer, comprising different services - Categorisation as a single supply)
(2021/C 206/15)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Q-GmbH

Defendant: Finanzamt Z

Operative part of the judgment

Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the value added tax (VAT) exemption which it lays down does not apply to services provided by a taxable person, which include the supply of an insurance product to an insurance company and, accessorily, the placement of that product on behalf of that company and the management of insurance contracts concluded, in the event that the referring court categorises those services as a single supply for VAT purposes.


(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Case C-614/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Merck KGaA v European Commission, Generics (UK) Ltd (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Pharmaceutical products — Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) — Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines — Article 101 TFEU — Potential competition — Restriction by object — Characterisation — Calculation of the amount of the fine)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, generic drug, market access, parent company, patent law, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2021206EN.01000502.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/5






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Merck KGaA v European Commission, Generics (UK) Ltd
(Case C-614/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) - Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine)
(2021/C 206/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Merck KGaA (represented by: B. Bär-Bouyssière and S. Smith, Solicitors, and by R. Kreisberger QC, and D. Mackersie, Barrister)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Vecchi, F. Castilla Contreras, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, and by G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel), Generics (UK) Ltd

Intervener in support of the defendents: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery, and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and by J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Merck KGaA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
State aid – Decision to raise no objections 2021/C 103/09
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: EFTA Surveillance Authority
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, State aid, aid to undertakings, airport, control of State aid, coronavirus disease, epidemic








C_2021103EN.01001001.xml










25.3.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/10






State aid – Decision to raise no objections
(2021/C 103/09)
The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:






Date of adoption of the decision


14 December 2020




Case No


85852




Decision No


158/20/COL




EFTA State


Norway




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Additional compensation to TORP Sandefjord Airport




Legal basis


The aid award letter from the Ministry of Transport implementing appropriation of the Norwegian Parliament




Type of measure


Individual aid




Objective


To compensate part of the damage directly suffered by Sandefjord Lufthavn AS from 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020 due to the public containment measures taken as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak




Form of aid


Grant




Budget


NOK 30 million




Intensity


87 % (estimate)




Duration


1 October 2020 – 31 December 2020




Economic sectors


Aviation




Name and address of the granting authority







The Ministry of Transport




Postboks 8010 Dep




N-0030 Oslo




NORWAY








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-576/20: Order of the General Court of 25 March 2021 — Evropská vodní doprava-sped. and Others v Parliament and Council
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: anti-discriminatory measure, carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, carrier, posted worker, provision of services, road transport, transport regulations, working conditions








C_2021206EN.01004101.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/41






Order of the General Court of 25 March 2021 — Evropská vodní doprava-sped. and Others v Parliament and Council
(Case T-576/20) (1)

(2021/C 206/49)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case C-187/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 25 March 2021 — FAWKES Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: common customs tariff, customs formalities, customs territory (EU), customs union, customs valuation, import (EU)








C_2021228EN.01002201.xml










14.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 228/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 25 March 2021 — FAWKES Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága
(Case C-187/21)
(2021/C 228/29)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FAWKES Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatósága

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code be interpreted as meaning that only the values listed in the database created from the customs clearances of the Member State’s own customs authority may and must be taken into account as the customs value?










2.


If the first question is answered in the negative, is it necessary, for the purposes of determining the customs value in accordance with Article 30(2)(a) and (b), to approach the customs authorities of other Member States in order to obtain the customs value of similar goods listed in their databases, and/or is it necessary to consult a Community database and obtain the customs values listed in it?










3.


May Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2913/92 be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining the customs value, account may not be taken of transaction values relating to transactions performed by the applicant for customs clearance himself, even if those values have not been challenged either by the national customs authority or by the national authorities of other Member States?










4.


Must the requirement of ‘at or about the same time’, laid down in Article 30(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2913/92, be interpreted as meaning that it may be limited to a period of +/- 45 days before and after customs clearance?






(1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 02 Volume 004 P. 307.
Case C-165/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Slovak Telekom a.s. v European Commission, Slovanet, a.s. (Appeal — Competition — Article 102 TFEU — Abuse of dominant position — Slovak market for broadband internet access services — Regulatory obligation on the part of operators with significant market power to grant access to the local loop — Conditions laid down by the incumbent operator for unbundled access by other operators to the local loop — Indispensability of the access — Margin squeeze — Costs — Competitor at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Slovakia, domestic market, dominant position, market access, parent company, prices policy, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), subsidiary, telecommunications








C_2021206EN.01000901.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/9






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Slovak Telekom a.s. v European Commission, Slovanet, a.s.
(Case C-165/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Article 102 TFEU - Abuse of dominant position - Slovak market for broadband internet access services - Regulatory obligation on the part of operators with significant market power to grant access to the local loop - Conditions laid down by the incumbent operator for unbundled access by other operators to the local loop - Indispensability of the access - Margin squeeze - Costs - Competitor at least as efficient as the dominant undertaking - Rights of the defence)
(2021/C 206/10)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Slovak Telekom a.s. (represented by: D. Geradin, avocat, and R. O’Donoghue QC)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Farley, M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari, C. Vollrath and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents), Slovanet, a.s. (represented by: P. Tisaj, advokát)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Slovak Telekom a.s., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Case T-161/21: Action brought on 25 March 2021 — McCord v Commission
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAEC, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, agreement (EU), protective clause, protocol to an agreement, withdrawal from the EU








C_2021252EN.01002601.xml










28.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 252/26






Action brought on 25 March 2021 — McCord v Commission
(Case T-161/21)
(2021/C 252/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Raymond Irvine McCord (Belfast, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. O’Hare, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, annul the decision and/or draft Regulation on 29 January 2021 of the European Commission to trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (2019/C 384 I/01) (‘the Withdrawal Agreement’) and;










—


pursuant to Article 263 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, annul the decision of the European Commission not to have a published policy or an order that the European Commission develops and publishes a policy on the circumstances in which the Commission will trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol;










—


pursuant to Article 265 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, declare that the European Commission has failed to act to have a published policy or an order that the European Commission develops and publishes a policy on the circumstances in which the Commission will trigger Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol;










—


order against the Commission for the Applicant’s costs of this application, to include all preparatory legal costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant puts forward that the decision and/or draft regulation to invoke Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (1), by the European Commission was disproportionate and unlawful. He further states that the Commission needs to publish its policy in relation to the triggering of Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community in the future.


(1)  Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2019 CI 384, p. 1).
Case C-586/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Pharmaceutical products — Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) — Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines — Article 101 TFEU — Potential competition — Restriction by object — Characterisation — Calculation of the amount of the fine)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European patent, cartel, competition policy, control of restrictive practices, generic drug, market access, patent law, restriction on competition, sanction (EU)








C_2021206EN.01000201.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/2






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd v European Commission
(Case C-586/16 P) (1)

(Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Pharmaceutical products - Market for antidepressant medicines (citalopram) - Settlement agreements concerning process patents concluded between a manufacturer of originator medicines holding those patents and manufacturers of generic medicines - Article 101 TFEU - Potential competition - Restriction by object - Characterisation - Calculation of the amount of the fine)
(2021/C 206/02)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, formerly Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd (represented by: R. Vidal, Solicitor, and B. Kennelly QC, and by L. Penny, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras, T. Vecchi, B. Mongin and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment and D. Bailey, Barristers, and by G. Peretz QC, and S. Kingston, Senior Counsel)

Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented: initially by D. Guðmundsdóttir, Z. Lavery and D. Robertson, acting as Agents, and by J. Holmes QC, and subsequently by D. Guðmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, and by J. Holmes QC)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Case C-856/19: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 258 TFEU — Directive 2011/64/EU — Article 10(2) and (3) — Excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco — Rate of the overall excise duty on cigarettes lower than the prescribed minimum rate — Internal difficulties — Threat of serious disruption to public order — Duty of sincere cooperation)
Date: 2021-03-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: excise duty, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, tax harmonisation, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2021206EN.01001201.xml










31.5.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/12






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 March 2021 — European Commission v Hungary
(Case C-856/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 258 TFEU - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 10(2) and (3) - Excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco - Rate of the overall excise duty on cigarettes lower than the prescribed minimum rate - Internal difficulties - Threat of serious disruption to public order - Duty of sincere cooperation)
(2021/C 206/14)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Perrin and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

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

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by applying to cigarettes an overall excise duty of less than 60 % of the weighted average retail selling price of cigarettes released for consumption and levying an excise duty of less than EUR 115 per 1 000 cigarettes, after the expiry of the transitional period granted until 31 December 2017, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(2) and (3) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco;










2.


Orders Hungary to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 19, 20.1.2020.