do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-818/18 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-6/19 P) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity of registration — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) — Sign consisting of a shape which does not represent a significant part of the goods)
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, pneumatic tyre, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2021289EN.01000302.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-818/18 P), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) v Pirelli Tyre SpA (C-6/19 P)
(Joined Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Absolute grounds for refusal or invalidity of registration - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) - Sign consisting of a shape which does not represent a significant part of the goods)
(2021/C 289/04)
Language of the case: English

Parties


(Case C-818/18 P)


Appellant: The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (represented by: D. Martucci and F. Boscariol de Roberto, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pirelli Tyre SpA (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, Rechtsanwälte), European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

(Case C-6/19 P)


Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

Other parties to the proceedings: Pirelli Tyre SpA (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, Rechtsanwälte), The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd (represented by: D. Martucci and F. Boscariol de Roberto, avvocati)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) (represented by: M. Viefhues, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeals in Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P;










2.


Orders The Yokohama Rubber Co. Ltd and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal proceedings in Cases C-818/18 P and C-6/19 P and to pay, in equal parts, the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in relation to those proceedings;










3.


Orders the European Association of Trade Mark Owners (Marques) to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Case C-650/18: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Hungary v European Parliament (Action for annulment — Article 7(1) TEU — European Parliament resolution on a proposal calling on the Council of the European Union to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the values on which the European Union is founded — Articles 263 and 269 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Admissibility of the appeal — Challengeable act — Article 354 TFEU — Rules for counting votes in the Parliament — Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Rule 178(3) — Concept of ‘votes cast’ — Abstentions — Principles of legal certainty, equal treatment, democracy and sincere cooperation)
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, direct democracy, equal treatment, infringement procedure (EU), parliamentary vote, principle of legal certainty, result of the vote, rules of procedure








C_2021289EN.01000301.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 — Hungary v European Parliament
(Case C-650/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Article 7(1) TEU - European Parliament resolution on a proposal calling on the Council of the European Union to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach of the values on which the European Union is founded - Articles 263 and 269 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Admissibility of the appeal - Challengeable act - Article 354 TFEU - Rules for counting votes in the Parliament - Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Rule 178(3) - Concept of ‘votes cast’ - Abstentions - Principles of legal certainty, equal treatment, democracy and sincere cooperation)
(2021/C 289/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


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

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, N. Görlitz and T. Lukácsi, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


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










3.


Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.
Case C-942/19: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón — Spain) — Servicio Aragonés de Salud v LB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Principle of non-discrimination — Rejection of a request for leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector provided for permanent staff regulated under administrative law — National legislation excluding entitlement to such leave when taking up temporary employment — Scope — Inapplicability of clause 4 — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: BusinessEurope, European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation, European Trade Union Confederation, equal treatment, jurisdiction, public sector, special leave, temporary employment








C_2021289EN.01001201.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/12






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón — Spain) — Servicio Aragonés de Salud v LB
(Case C-942/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Rejection of a request for leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector provided for permanent staff regulated under administrative law - National legislation excluding entitlement to such leave when taking up temporary employment - Scope - Inapplicability of clause 4 - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
(2021/C 289/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Servicio Aragonés de Salud

Respondent: LB

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón (High Court of Justice, Aragon, Spain), in its order for reference of 17 December 2019.


(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10229 — Allianz/Aviva Italia) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 210/03
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Italy, economic concentration, financial services, insurance, merger control








C_2021210EN.01000801.xml










3.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/8






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10229 — Allianz/Aviva Italia)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 210/03)

1.   
On 27 May 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:






—


Allianz S.p.A. (‘Allianz’, Italy),










—


Aviva Italia (Italy).




Allianz acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Aviva Italia.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Allianz is part of the Allianz group, a global financial services provider active predominantly in relation to life insurance products and non-life insurance products, as well as asset management,










—


Aviva Italia offers non-life insurance products in Italy.






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.



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.10229 — Allianz/Aviva Italia
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’).
Case C-345/21 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2021 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-282/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, meat, milk product, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022024EN.01001101.xml










17.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 24/11






Appeal brought on 3 June 2021 by Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 24 March 2021 in Case T-282/19, Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO
(Case C-345/21 P)
(2022/C 24/14)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (represented by: S. Malynicz, BL, S. Baran, Barrister, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 23 November 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi should bear its own costs.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10272 — Utmost/Quilter International) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 210/05
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, life assurance, merger control








C_2021210EN.01001101.xml










3.6.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 210/11






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10272 — Utmost/Quilter International)
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 210/05)

1.   
On 21 May 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:






—


Utmost Group Limited (‘Utmost’, United Kingdom), controlled by Oaktree Capital Group Holdings GP, LLC (‘Oaktree’, United Kingdom) and Brookfield Asset Management Inc. (‘Brookfield’, USA),










—


Quilter International Holdings and Quilter International Ireland Designated Activity Company (together, ‘Quilter International’, Ireland).




Utmost acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Quilter International.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






—


Utmost is a specialist life assurance group. Through its group companies, Utmost provides (i) international life assurance to high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth individuals, (ii) savings and employee benefit services, and (iii) life insurance consolidation services in the UK. Utmost is controlled by Oaktree and Brookfield, which both provide asset management services worldwide.










—


Quilter International provides cross-border investment life assurance solutions in the UK, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America.






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.10272 – Utmost/Quilter International
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 C-784/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Legislation applicable — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 12(1) — Posting of workers — Temporary agency workers — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 14(2) — A1 certificate — Determination of the Member State in which the employer normally carries out its activities — Concept of ‘substantial activities, other than purely internal management activities’ — No assignment of temporary agency workers in the territory of the Member State in which the employer is established)
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: establishment, migrant worker, posted worker, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation, temporary employment agency








C_2021289EN.01000802.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/8






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — ‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna
(Case C-784/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Legislation applicable - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 12(1) - Posting of workers - Temporary agency workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 14(2) - A1 certificate - Determination of the Member State in which the employer normally carries out its activities - Concept of ‘substantial activities, other than purely internal management activities’ - No assignment of temporary agency workers in the territory of the Member State in which the employer is established)
(2021/C 289/11)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad — Varna

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘TEAM POWER EUROPE’ EOOD

Defendant: Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite — Varna

Operative part of the judgment

Article 14(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that a temporary-work agency established in a Member State must, in order for it to be considered that it ‘normally carries out its activities’, within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, in that Member State, carry out a significant part of its activities of assigning temporary agency workers for the benefit of user undertakings established and carrying out their activities in the territory of that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 27, 27.1.2020.
Case C-182/20: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — BE, DT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Right to deduct — Adjustment of deductions — Insolvency proceedings — National legislation providing for automatic refusal to allow deduction of VAT in respect of taxable transactions that occurred prior to the initiation of those proceedings)
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, financial solvency, liquidation, tax relief








C_2021289EN.01001401.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/14






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Suceava — Romania) — BE, DT v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP
(Case C-182/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Right to deduct - Adjustment of deductions - Insolvency proceedings - National legislation providing for automatic refusal to allow deduction of VAT in respect of taxable transactions that occurred prior to the initiation of those proceedings)
(2021/C 289/19)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Suceava

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: BE, DT

Defendants: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Iaşi, Accer Ipurl Suceava — acting as court-appointed liquidator of BE, EP

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 184 to 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation or practice whereby the initiation of insolvency proceedings in respect of an economic operator, entailing the liquidation of its assets for the benefit of its creditors, automatically places an obligation on that operator to adjust the value added tax deductions which it has made in respect of goods and services acquired before it was declared insolvent, where the initiation of those proceedings is not such as to prevent that operator’s economic activity, within the meaning of Article 9 of that directive, from being continued, in particular for the purposes of the liquidation of the undertaking concerned.


(1)  OJ C 297, 7.9.2020.
Case C-546/19: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — BZ v Westerwaldkreis (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Immigration policy — Return of illegally staying third-country nationals — Directive 2008/115/EC — Article 2(1) — Scope — Third-country national — Criminal conviction in the Member State — Article 3(6) — Entry ban — Grounds of public policy and public security — Withdrawal of the return decision — Lawfulness of the entry ban)
Date: 2021-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, illegal migration, penalty, public order, removal








C_2021289EN.01000501.xml










19.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 289/5






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — BZ v Westerwaldkreis
(Case C-546/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Immigration policy - Return of illegally staying third-country nationals - Directive 2008/115/EC - Article 2(1) - Scope - Third-country national - Criminal conviction in the Member State - Article 3(6) - Entry ban - Grounds of public policy and public security - Withdrawal of the return decision - Lawfulness of the entry ban)
(2021/C 289/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BZ

Defendant: Westerwaldkreis

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a ban on entry and stay, imposed by a Member State, which has not made use of the option provided for in Article 2(2)(b) of that directive, against a third-country national who is on its territory and is the subject of an expulsion order on grounds of public security and public policy, on the basis of a previous criminal conviction.










2.


Directive 2008/115 must be interpreted as precluding the maintenance in force of a ban on entry and stay, issued by a Member State against a third-country national who is on its territory and is the subject of an expulsion order, which has become final, adopted on grounds of public security and public policy on the basis of a previous criminal conviction, where the return decision adopted in respect of that third-country national by that state has been withdrawn, even if that expulsion order has become final.






(1)  OJ C 348, 14.10.2019.