do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-807/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Deutsche Wohnen SE v Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative offence, administrative sanction, data protection, data-processing law, employer, personal data, wage earner








C_2022128EN.01000801.xml










21.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 128/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Deutsche Wohnen SE v Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin
(Case C-807/21)
(2022/C 128/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Kammergericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings


Summary proceedings against: Deutsche Wohnen SE

Other party to the proceedings: Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR (1) to be interpreted as incorporating into national law the functional concept of an undertaking and the principle of an economic entity, as defined in Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, as a result of which, by broadening the principle of a legal entity underpinning Paragraph 30 of the Gesetz über Ordnungswidrigkeiten (Law on administrative offences; ‘the OWiG’), proceedings for an administrative fine may be brought against an undertaking directly and a fine imposed without requiring a finding that a natural and identified person committed an administrative offence, if necessary, in satisfaction of the objective and subjective elements of tortious liability?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is Article 83(4) to (6) of the GDPR to be interpreted as meaning that the undertaking must have intentionally or negligently committed the breach of an obligation vicariously through an employee (see Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2)), or is the objective fact of breach caused by it sufficient, in principle, for a fine to be imposed on that undertaking (‘strict liability’)?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
Case T-361/20: Order of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Europull (GREEN COAST)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022119EN.01005801.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/58






Order of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Europull (GREEN COAST)
(Case T-361/20) (1)

(2022/C 119/82)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 255, 3.8.2020.
Case T-549/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Magic Box Int. Toys v EUIPO — KMA Concepts (SUPERZINGS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark SUPERZINGS — Earlier international figurative mark ZiNG — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, decorative item, office supplies, online game, paperboard, registered trade mark, sports equipment, teaching materials, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2022095EN.01003001.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/30






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Magic Box Int. Toys v EUIPO — KMA Concepts (SUPERZINGS)
(Case T-549/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark SUPERZINGS - Earlier international figurative mark ZiNG - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 95/40)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Magic Box Int. Toys SLU (Sant Cugat del Vallés, Spain) (represented by: J. L. Rivas Zurdo and E. López Leiva, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: KMA Concepts Ltd. (Mahé, Seychelles) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll and I. Osinaga Lozano, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2020 (Case R 2511/2019-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between KMA Concepts and Magic Box Int. Toys.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Magic Box Int. Toys SLU to bear its owns costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by KMA Concepts Ltd.






(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.
Case C-876/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — PlasticsEurope AISBL v European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, ClientEarth (Appeal — Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation — List of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Updating of the entry of the substance bisphenol A as a substance of very high concern)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, product safety








C_2022084EN.01000602.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/6






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 December 2021 — PlasticsEurope AISBL v European Chemicals Agency, French Republic, ClientEarth
(Case C-876/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Establishment of a list of substances subject to authorisation - List of substances identified with a view to their eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Updating of the entry of the substance bisphenol A as a substance of very high concern)
(2022/C 84/07)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: PlasticsEurope AISBL (represented: initially by R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, and subsequently by R. Cana and E. Mullier, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, A.K. Hautamäki and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and by S. Raes, advocaat), French Republic (represented by: T. Stehelin and E. Leclerc, acting as Agents), ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

Intervener in support of the other parties to the proceedings: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders PlasticsEurope AISBL to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and ClientEarth;










3.


Orders the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.
Case T-598/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Skechers USA v EUIPO (ARCH FIT) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark ARCH FIT — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022095EN.01003101.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/31






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Skechers USA v EUIPO (ARCH FIT)
(Case T-598/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ARCH FIT - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 95/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Skechers USA, Inc. II (Manhattan Beach, California, United States) (represented by: T. Holman and A. Reid, Solicitors, and J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 July 2020 (Case R 2631/2019-1), relating to an application for registration of the word sign ARCH FIT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Skechers USA, Inc. II to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.
Case T-159/21: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Bustos v EUIPO — Bicicletas Monty (motwi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark motwi — Earlier national word mark MONTY — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electric vehicle, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2022095EN.01003202.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/32






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Bustos v EUIPO — Bicicletas Monty (motwi)
(Case T-159/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark motwi - Earlier national word mark MONTY - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 95/44)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


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

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2021 (Case R 289/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bicicletas Monty and Mr Bustos.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 January 2021 (Case R 289/2020-5);










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 10.5.2021.
Case C-395/20: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — EP, GM v Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights — Article 2(l) — Article 5(1) — Change in the departure time of a flight — Departure postponed by approximately three hours — Passengers notified nine days before departure — Concepts of ‘cancellation’ and ‘delay’)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2022084EN.01001601.xml










21.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 84/16






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 December 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — EP, GM v Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş.
(Case C-395/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of cancellation or long delay of flights - Article 2(l) - Article 5(1) - Change in the departure time of a flight - Departure postponed by approximately three hours - Passengers notified nine days before departure - Concepts of ‘cancellation’ and ‘delay’)
(2022/C 84/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: EP, GM

Defendant: Corendon Airlines Turistik Hava Taşımacılık A.Ş.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(l) and 5(1) 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 flight is not regarded as ‘cancelled’, within the meaning of those provisions, in the case where the operating air carrier postpones the time of departure of that flight by less than three hours, without making any other change to that flight.


(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
Case T-205/21: Order of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Kewazo v EUIPO (Liftbot) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Liftbot — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, civil engineering, computer equipment, construction equipment, hoisting equipment, lift, registered trade mark, research, software, trade-mark law








C_2022119EN.01004601.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/46






Order of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Kewazo v EUIPO (Liftbot)
(Case T-205/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Liftbot - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2022/C 119/64)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Kewazo GmbH (Garching, Germany) (represented by: P. Baronikians, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2021 (Case R 1160/2020-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Liftbot as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


Kewazo GmbH shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.
Case C-806/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Criminal proceedings against TF
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, drug traffic, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, psychotropic substance, storage








C_2022138EN.01001402.xml










28.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 138/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 December 2021 — Criminal proceedings against TF
(Case C-806/21)
(2022/C 138/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party to the main proceedings

TF

Questions referred







1.


Are natural and legal persons who are involved in the placing on the market of scheduled substances in such a way that that involvement constitutes an offence punishable under Article 2(1)(d) of Framework Decision 2004/757 (1) to be regarded as ‘operators’ for the purposes of Article 2(d) of Regulation No 273/2004? (2)

If the answer to this first question is in the affirmative:










2.








(a)


Does the conduct of the operator referred to in Question 1 constitute a ‘circumstance’ for the purposes of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 273/2004?










(b)


Does conduct such as the receipt, transport and storage of scheduled substances constitute a ‘circumstance’ for the purposes of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 273/2004 if that conduct does not take place with the intention of supplying those substances to a third party?










(1)  Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking (OJ 2004 L 335, p. 8).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10290 – MICROSOFT / NUANCE) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 296/01
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: cloud computing, economic concentration, merger control, software








C_2022296EN.01000101.xml










3.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 296/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10290 – MICROSOFT / NUANCE)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 296/01)
On 21 December 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 32021M10290. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-209/15: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission (State aid — Airport infrastructure — Public funding by the municipalities of Gdynia and Kosakowo for setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Market economy operator principle — Effect on trade between Member States — Adverse effect on competition — Recovery — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU competition policy, Poland, Pomerania, State aid, airport, control of State aid, local authority finances, municipality, reimbursement of aid, restriction on competition








C_2022095EN.01002101.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/21






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — Gmina Kosakowo v Commission
(Case T-209/15) (1)

(State aid - Airport infrastructure - Public funding by the municipalities of Gdynia and Kosakowo for setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo Airport - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Market economy operator principle - Effect on trade between Member States - Adverse effect on competition - Recovery - Obligation to state reasons)
(2022/C 95/26)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Gmina Kosakowo (Poland) (represented by: M. Leśny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, K. Herrmann and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1586 of 26 February 2015 on measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 165).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Gmina Kosakowo, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.
Case T-587/20: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — MO v Council (Civil service — Officials — Compulsory reassignment — 2019 Appraisal exercise — Right to be heard — Liability)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, reassignment, rights of the defence, staff assessment








C_2022095EN.01003002.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/30






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — MO v Council
(Case T-587/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Compulsory reassignment - 2019 Appraisal exercise - Right to be heard - Liability)
(2022/C 95/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: MO (represented by: A. Guillerme, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, M. Alver and K. Kouri, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the decision of the Council of 19 November 2019 to reassign the applicant to the [confidential] unit and of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2019 and, second, compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders MO to the costs.






(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.
Case T-190/17: Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — EKETA v Commission (Arbitration clause — Cater contract concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme — Eligible costs — Debit note issued by the Commission for the recovery of amounts advanced — Reliability of the time records — Conflict of interests)
Date: 2021-12-21
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Framework Programme for Research and Development, arbitration clause, conflict of interest, debt, expenditure, financial aid, reimbursement of aid








C_2022095EN.01002302.xml










28.2.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/23






Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — EKETA v Commission
(Case T-190/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Cater contract concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme - Eligible costs - Debit note issued by the Commission for the recovery of amounts advanced - Reliability of the time records - Conflict of interests)
(2022/C 95/30)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos. lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Katsimerou, T. Adamopoulos and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration, first, that the request made to the applicant by the Commission in debit note No 3241615289 of 29 November 2016 to reimburse to it the sum of EUR 172 992,15 of the payment received for a study on a research project called Cater is, in the amount of EUR 28 520,08, unfounded, and, second, that the sum in dispute corresponds to eligible costs which the applicant is not required to reimburse.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.