do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-430/21: Action brought on 15 July 2021 — Apex Brands v EUIPO — SARTORIUS Werkzeuge (SATA)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, heating, leather, lighting, lighting equipment, plastics industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021357EN.01003001.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/30






Action brought on 15 July 2021 — Apex Brands v EUIPO — SARTORIUS Werkzeuge (SATA)
(Case T-430/21)
(2021/C 357/46)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Apex Brands, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: S. Fröhlich, H. Lerchl and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SARTORIUS Werkzeuge GmbH & Co. KG (Ratingen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


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

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark SATA — Application for registration No 18 051 525

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 May 2021 in Case R 2322/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs incurred by the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of the general principle of equal treatment.
Case C-190/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medicinal products for human use subject to a medical prescription — Directive 2001/83/EC — Scope — Advertising by a mail-order pharmacy intended to influence not the customer’s choice of a particular medicinal product, but the choice of pharmacy — Prize competition — Free movement of goods — National legislation — Prohibition on offering, advertising or granting advantages and other promotional gifts in the field of therapeutic products — Selling arrangements falling outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, distance selling, free movement of goods, gift, medicinal product, pharmacy, sales promotion








C_2021349EN.01001001.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/10






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — DocMorris NV v Apothekerkammer Nordrhein
(Case C-190/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medicinal products for human use subject to a medical prescription - Directive 2001/83/EC - Scope - Advertising by a mail-order pharmacy intended to influence not the customer’s choice of a particular medicinal product, but the choice of pharmacy - Prize competition - Free movement of goods - National legislation - Prohibition on offering, advertising or granting advantages and other promotional gifts in the field of therapeutic products - Selling arrangements falling outside the scope of Article 34 TFEU)
(2021/C 349/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DocMorris NV

Defendant: Apothekerkammer Nordrhein

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation which prohibits a pharmacy which sells medicinal products by mail order from organising an advertising campaign in the form of a prize competition allowing participants to win everyday items other than medicinal products, participation in that competition being subject to the submission of an order for a medicinal product for human use subject to a medical prescription, together with that prescription;










2.


Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such national legislation.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.08.2020.
Case C-30/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n° 2 de Madrid — Spain) — RH v AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 7(2) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the damage occurred — Cartel declared contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Determination of international and territorial jurisdiction — Centralisation of jurisdiction in favour of a specialised court)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competition policy, cartel, control of restrictive practices, damage, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, price agreement








C_2021349EN.01000802.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/8






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 2 de Madrid — Spain) — RH v AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA
(Case C-30/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 7(2) - Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Place where the damage occurred - Cartel declared contrary to Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Determination of international and territorial jurisdiction - Centralisation of jurisdiction in favour of a specialised court)
(2021/C 349/10)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil no 2 de Madrid

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: RH

Defendants: AB Volvo, Volvo Group Trucks Central Europe GmbH, Volvo Lastvagnar AB, Volvo Group España SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, within the market affected by collusive arrangements on the fixing and increase in the prices of goods, either the court within whose jurisdiction the undertaking claiming to be harmed purchased the goods affected by those arrangements or, in the case of purchases made by that undertaking in several places, the court within whose jurisdiction that undertaking’s registered office is situated, has international and territorial jurisdiction, in terms of the place where the damage occurred, over an action for compensation for the damage caused by those arrangements contrary to Article 101 TFEU.


(1)  OJ C 161, 11.5.2020.
Case T-455/20: Order of the General Court of 15 July 2021 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of an orange square containing seven concentric black circles) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark depicting an orange square containing seven concentric black circles — Absolute ground for refusal — Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result — Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, insulator, plastics industry, registered trade mark, rubber industry, trade-mark law








C_2021382EN.01002601.xml










20.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 382/26






Order of the General Court of 15 July 2021 — Roxtec v EUIPO — Wallmax (Representation of an orange square containing seven concentric black circles)
(Case T-455/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark depicting an orange square containing seven concentric black circles - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign consisting exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2021/C 382/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Roxtec AB (Karlskrona, Sweden) (represented by: J. Olsson and J. Adamsson, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Wallmax Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Bergmann, F. Ferrari and L. Goglia, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 April 2020 (Case R 2385/2018-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Wallmax and Roxtec.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Roxtec AB shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).










3.


Wallmax Srl shall bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 304, 14.9.2020.
Calls for proposals and related activities under the European Research Council Work Programme 2022 under Horizon Europe - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027) 2021/C 283/03
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Commission
Subjects: EU research policy, Framework Programme for Research and Development, action programme, executive agency, innovation, invitation to tender, research and development








C_2021283EN.01000901.xml










15.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/9






Calls for proposals and related activities under the European Research Council Work Programme 2022 under Horizon Europe - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2021-2027)
(2021/C 283/03)
Notice is hereby given of the launch of calls for proposals and related activities under the European Research Council Work Programme 2022 under Horizon Europe (Council Decision (EU) 2021/764 establishing the specific programme implementing Horizon Europe - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation 2021-2027, adopted on 12 May 2021) and under the Commission Decision 2021/C 234 I/03 adopted on 12 May 2021 establishing the European Research Council for Horizon Europe and repealing Decision C(2013)8915.
The Commission has adopted the ERC Work Programme 2022 by Decision C(2021)4860 of 14 July 2021.
Proposals are invited for these calls.
The ERC Work Programme 2022, including deadlines and budgets, is available through the Funding & Tender opportunities website along with information on the modalities of the calls and related activities and the information for applicants on how to submit proposals: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/home
Case T-438/21: Action brought on 15 July 2021 — TL v Commission
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, indemnification, job vacancy, pay, termination of employment, work contract








C_2021357EN.01003201.xml










6.9.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/32






Action brought on 15 July 2021 — TL v Commission
(Case T-438/21)
(2021/C 357/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TL (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the defendant’s decision of 29 October 2020 not to extend the applicant’s employment contract (the ‘non-renewal decision’);










—


together with, and so far as necessary, annul the defendant’s decision of 5 May 2021 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of 29 October 2020 (the ‘contested decision’);










—


annul the defendant’s vacancy notice of 2 October 2020, in so far as it offers a post with tasks identical to the ones the applicant was already performing;










—


order the payment of compensation amounting to 90 % of the applicant’s gross salaries, including pension contributions, for the loss of serious chance of having the existing employment contract renewed and order the payment of a compensation for the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment since the reasons given in the ‘contested decision’ and in the ‘non renewal decision’ of the applicant’s employment contract are not well founded. Furthermore, it is argued that the files on which the applicant has mainly worked have not become less prominent and that the unit staff needs have not diminished, contrary to what the defendant alleges.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its duty of care because there has been no balance between the interest of the service and the interest of the staff member. It is also argued that the defendant has not taken other elements contained in the file of the applicant (i.e., harassment) into consideration.
Case C-453/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Ryanair DAC (Appeal — State aid — Aid for airports and airlines — Decision classifying the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport — Inadmissibility of an action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Natural or legal person not directly and individually concerned by the decision at issue — Effective judicial protection)
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Rhineland-Palatinate, State aid, airline, airport, capital increase, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid








C_2021349EN.01000301.xml










30.8.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 349/3






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 July 2021 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz, Ryanair DAC
(Case C-453/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid for airports and airlines - Decision classifying the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport - Inadmissibility of an action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Natural or legal person not directly and individually concerned by the decision at issue - Effective judicial protection)
(2021/C 349/03)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Land Rheinland-Pfalz (represented by: Professor C. Koenig), Ryanair DAC (represented by: G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, D. Vasbeck, avocat, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz and Ryanair DAC.






(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2021 in Case E-11/20 Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State (Directive 2003/88/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Working time – Travel to a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance – International travel) 2021/C 426/07
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Iceland, commuting, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, remuneration of work, working time, workplace








C_2021426EN.01001001.xml










21.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 426/10






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 15 July 2021
in Case E-11/20
Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State


(Directive 2003/88/EC – Protection of the safety and health of workers – Working time – Travel to a location other than a worker’s fixed or habitual place of attendance – International travel)


(2021/C 426/07)
In Case E-11/20, Eyjólfur Orri Sverrisson v The Icelandic State – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Reykjavík District Court (Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur) concerning the interpretation of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, in particular Article 2 (1), the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


The necessary time spent travelling, outside normal working hours, by a worker, such as the plaintiff in the main proceedings, to a location other than his fixed or habitual place of attendance in order to carry out his activity or duties in that other location, as required by his employer, constitutes ‘working time’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time. It is immaterial whether that journey is made entirely within the EEA or to or from third countries if the employment agreement is established under and governed by the national law of an EEA State.










2.


No assessment of the intensity of the work performed while travelling is required.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10342 — Leonard Green & Partners/Goldman Sachs Group/AEA Investors/Visual Comfort) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 291/02
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, investment, investment company, lighting equipment, merger control, provision of services, securities








C_2021291EN.01000201.xml










21.7.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 291/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10342 — Leonard Green & Partners/Goldman Sachs Group/AEA Investors/Visual Comfort)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 291/02)
On 15 July 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10342. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2021 in Case E-9/20 EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway (Free movement of workers – Freedom of establishment – Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 – Combined residence and nationality requirement for corporate officers – General manager – Members of the board – Consistency) 2021/C 426/08
Date: 2021-07-15
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: Norway, board of management, company law, equal treatment, free movement of workers, managing director, nationality, residence, right of establishment








C_2021426EN.01001101.xml










21.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 426/11






JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of 15 July 2021
in Case E-9/20
EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway


(Free movement of workers – Freedom of establishment – Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 – Combined residence and nationality requirement for corporate officers – General manager – Members of the board – Consistency)


(2021/C 426/08)
In Case E-9/20, EFTA Surveillance Authority v the Kingdom of Norway –APPLICATION seeking a declaration that, by maintaining in force various nationality and/or residence requirements laid down in Norwegian company law in respect of persons who occupy certain management roles in companies registered and incorporated in Norway, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 31 and 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as well as Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen and Bernd Hammermann (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 15 July 2021, the operative part of which is as follows:






1.


Declares that, by maintaining in force Sections 6-11(1) and 6-36(2) of the Public Limited Companies Act, Section 6-11(1) of the Private Limited Companies Act and Sections 7-5 and 8-4(5) of the Financial Undertakings Act, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of the EEA Agreement.










2.


Dismisses the application as to the remainder.










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.