do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-397/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita Company (JUVEDERM) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark JUVEDERM — Genuine use of the mark — Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aesthetic surgery, medical device, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2021481EN.01002402.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/24






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO — Dermavita Company (JUVEDERM)
(Case T-397/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark JUVEDERM - Genuine use of the mark - Use in connection with the goods in respect of which the mark is registered - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2021/C 481/34)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Allergan Holdings France SAS (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor, and T. de Haan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: K. Zajfert and V.J. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. (Beirut, Lebanon) (represented by: D. Todorov, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 April 2020 (Case R 877/2019-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Dermavita Company and Allergan Holdings France.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Rejects the plea of inadmissibility;










2.


Dismisses the action;










3.


Orders Allergan Holdings France SAS to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and two-thirds of the costs incurred by Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. relating to the present proceedings;










4.


Orders Dermavita Company S.a.r.l. to bear a third of its own costs relating to the present proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2020.
Case T-745/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Covestro Deutschland v Commission (State aid — Aid scheme implemented by Germany in favour of certain large electricity consumers — Exemption from network charges for the period 2012 — 2013 — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid granted — Action for annulment — Time limit for bringing an action — Admissibility — Definition of aid — State resources — Equal treatment — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, State aid, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, electricity supply, equal treatment, reimbursement of aid








C_2021471EN.01003901.xml










22.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 471/39






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Covestro Deutschland v Commission
(Case T-745/18) (1)

(State aid - Aid scheme implemented by Germany in favour of certain large electricity consumers - Exemption from network charges for the period 2012 — 2013 - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid granted - Action for annulment - Time limit for bringing an action - Admissibility - Definition of aid - State resources - Equal treatment - Legitimate expectations)
(2021/C 471/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Covestro Deutschland AG (Leverkusen, Germany) (represented by: M. Küper, J. Otter, C. Anger and M. Goldberg, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/56 of 28 May 2018 of 7 May 2015 on the State aid SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany to baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 StromNEV (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The application is dismissed;










2.


Covestro Deutschland AG is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 82 of 4.3.2019.
Case T-88/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Rivière and Others v Parliament (Institutional law — European Parliament — Measure adopted by the President of the European Parliament forbidding national flags being placed on the desks of Members of Parliament — Standards of conduct of Members of Parliament — Article 10(3) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure — Act not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, President of the EP, flag, parliamentary rules of procedure








C_2021490EN.01003501.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/35






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Rivière and Others v Parliament
(Case T-88/20) (1)

(Institutional law - European Parliament - Measure adopted by the President of the European Parliament forbidding national flags being placed on the desks of Members of Parliament - Standards of conduct of Members of Parliament - Article 10(3) of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure - Act not open to challenge - Inadmissibility)
(2021/C 490/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Jérôme Rivière (Nice, France) and the 10 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

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

Interveners in support of the applicants: Gunnar Beck (Neuss, Germany), Philippe Olivier (Draveil, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the measure adopted by the President of the European Parliament on 13 January 2020 forbidding Members of Parliament from displaying the national flag on their desks.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as inadmissible;










2.


Orders Mr Jérôme Rivière and the 10 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament;










3.


Orders Mr Gunnar Beck and Mr Philippe Olivier to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 114, 6.4.2020.
Case C-882/19: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sumal SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Competition — Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU — Determination of the undertakings liable to provide compensation — Action for compensation directed against the subsidiary of a parent company and brought following a decision finding only that the parent company participated in a cartel — Concept of an ‘undertaking’ — Concept of ‘economic unit’)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cartel, control of restrictive practices, indemnification, parent company, restriction on competition, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), subsidiary








C_2021490EN.01000701.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/7






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona — Spain) — Sumal SL v Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL
(Case C-882/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Competition - Compensation for harm caused by a practice prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU - Determination of the undertakings liable to provide compensation - Action for compensation directed against the subsidiary of a parent company and brought following a decision finding only that the parent company participated in a cartel - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Concept of ‘economic unit’)
(2021/C 490/04)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Sumal SL

Defendant: Mercedes Benz Trucks España SL

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the victim of an anticompetitive practice by an undertaking may bring an action for damages, without distinction, either against a parent company who has been punished by the Commission for that practice in a decision or against a subsidiary of that company which is not referred to in that decision, where those companies together constitute a single economic unit. The subsidiary company concerned must be able effectively to rely on its rights of the defence in order to show that it does not belong to that undertaking and, where no decision has been adopted by the Commission under Article 101 TFEU, it is also entitled to dispute the very existence of the conduct alleged to amount to an infringement;










2.


Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a national law which provides for the possibility of imputing liability for one company’s conduct to another company only in circumstances where the second company controls the first company.






(1)  OJ C 87, 16.3.2020.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10374 – BAIN CAPITAL / HITACHI METALS) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 473/02
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic component, investment company, merger control, metal product, supplier








C_2021473EN.01001601.xml










24.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 473/16






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10374 – BAIN CAPITAL / HITACHI METALS)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 473/02)
On 6 October 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 policy’ 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 32021M10374. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-3/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Power Horse Energy Drinks v EUIPO — Robot Energy Europe (UNSTOPPABLE) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark UNSTOPPABLE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Lack of descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, non-alcoholic beverage, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, vitamin








C_2021481EN.01002901.xml










29.11.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 481/29






Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Power Horse Energy Drinks v EUIPO — Robot Energy Europe (UNSTOPPABLE)
(Case T-3/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark UNSTOPPABLE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Lack of descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2021/C 481/41)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Power Horse Energy Drinks GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: M. Woller, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Robot Energy Europe (Mijas, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 October 2020 (Case R 232/2020-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Power Horse Energy Drinks and Robot Energy Europe.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Power Horse Energy Drinks GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 62, 22.2.2021.
Case C-253/21: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5 — Article 7 — Article 8(3) — Denied boarding, cancellation or long delay of a flight — Compensation and assistance to passengers — Concept of ‘cancellation’ — Diversion of a flight to an airport not serving the same town, city or region as that for which the booking was made — Re-routing of passengers by coach)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2022051EN.01001402.xml










31.1.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/14






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg — Germany) — TUIfly GmbH v FI, RE
(Case C-253/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5 - Article 7 - Article 8(3) - Denied boarding, cancellation or long delay of a flight - Compensation and assistance to passengers - Concept of ‘cancellation’ - Diversion of a flight to an airport not serving the same town, city or region as that for which the booking was made - Re-routing of passengers by coach)
(2022/C 51/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: TUIfly GmbH

Respondents: FI, RE

Operative part of the order

Article 5(1)(c), Article 7(1) and Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a diverted flight landing at an airport which is not that for which the booking was made and which does not serve the same town, city or region is capable of conferring on the passenger a right to compensation for cancellation of a flight.


(1)  OJ C 289, 19.7.2021.
Case C-316/21: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Monument Vandekerckhove NV v Stad Gent (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Directive 2014/24/EU — Conduct of the procedure — Choice of participants and award of contracts — Article 63 — Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority — Failure to meet the requirements relating to the technical and professional ability of the tenderer by the entity on whose capacities the tenderer intends to rely — Obligation to allow that tenderer to replace that entity — Principle of proportionality)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, equal treatment, invitation to tender, principle of proportionality, public procurement, services contract, tendering








C_2022064EN.01000501.xml










7.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 64/5






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Monument Vandekerckhove NV v Stad Gent
(Case C-316/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Directive 2014/24/EU - Conduct of the procedure - Choice of participants and award of contracts - Article 63 - Tenderer relying on the capacities of another entity in order to meet the requirements of the contracting authority - Failure to meet the requirements relating to the technical and professional ability of the tenderer by the entity on whose capacities the tenderer intends to rely - Obligation to allow that tenderer to replace that entity - Principle of proportionality)
(2022/C 64/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Monument Vandekerckhove NV

Defendant: Stad Gent

Other parties: Denys NV, Aelterman BVBA

Operative part of the order

The second subparagraph of Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, read in conjunction with the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination and proportionality as set out in Article 18(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that, where it ascertains that an entity on whose capacity an economic operator intends to rely does not fulfil the selection criteria, the contracting authority is obliged to request that the economic operator replace that entity, if it does not wish to be excluded from the public procurement procedure concerned.


(1)  OJ C 320, 9.8.2021.
Euro exchange rates (Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.) 5 October 2021 2021/C 403/04
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2021403EN.01000401.xml










6.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 403/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

5 October 2021
(2021/C 403/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1602 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,99 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4379 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85173 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,1310 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0752 




ISK


Iceland króna


148,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9155 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,308 




HUF


Hungarian forint


356,90 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,5998 




RON


Romanian leu


4,9477 




TRY


Turkish lira


10,2707 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5937 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4612 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0324 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6650 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5743 




KRW


South Korean won


1 376,12 




ZAR


South African rand


17,3792 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,4805 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,5050 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 506,62 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8482 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,893 




RUB


Russian rouble


84,1541 




THB


Thai baht


39,203 




BRL


Brazilian real


6,3106 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,7904 




INR


Indian rupee


86,4880 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-613/20: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — CS v Eurowings GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Strike by airline staff — Strike by the staff of a subsidiary in solidarity with the staff of the parent company)
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, crew, indemnification, parent company, strike, subsidiary, trade union, traveller








C_2021490EN.01001501.xml










6.12.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 490/15






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 6 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — CS v Eurowings GmbH
(Case C-613/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Strike by airline staff - Strike by the staff of a subsidiary in solidarity with the staff of the parent company)
(2021/C 490/14)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesgericht Salzburg

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: CS

Respondent: Eurowings GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that strike action intended to assert workers’ demands with regard to salary and/or social benefits, which is entered into upon a call by a trade union of the staff of an operating air carrier in solidarity with strike action which was launched against the parent company of which that air carrier is a subsidiary, which is observed by a category of the staff of that subsidiary whose presence is necessary to operate a flight and which continues beyond the period originally announced by the trade union which called the strike, in spite of the fact that an agreement has been reached in the meantime with the parent company, is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10442 – Advent International/Sobi) (Text with EEA relevance) 2021/C 413/02
Date: 2021-10-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, orphan disease, pharmaceutical industry








C_2021413EN.01000201.xml










12.10.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10442 – Advent International/Sobi)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2021/C 413/02)
On 6 October 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 32021M10442. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.