do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-634/19: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — FC v EUAA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Pre-disciplinary proceedings — Suspension, withholding of remuneration and prohibition on access to EUAA’s premises and facilities — OLAF Report — Principle of sound administration — Right to be heard — Principle of impartiality — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Liability — Close link with the claim for annulment)
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, disciplinary proceedings, rights of the defence, servant (EU), termination of employment








C_2022237EN.01004601.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/46






Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — FC v EUAA
(Case T-634/19) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Pre-disciplinary proceedings - Suspension, withholding of remuneration and prohibition on access to EUAA’s premises and facilities - OLAF Report - Principle of sound administration - Right to be heard - Principle of impartiality - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Liability - Close link with the claim for annulment)
(2022/C 237/57)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: FC (represented by: V. Christianos, A. Skoulikis and M.-C. Vlachoy, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) (represented by: P. Eyckmans and M. Stamatopoulou, acting as Agents, and A. Guillerme and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Re:

By her action under Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) of [confidential] by which that agency suspended her and of the decision of [confidential] by which it rejected her complaint of [confidential] and, second, compensation for the harm she claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders FC to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 25.11.2019.
Case C-242/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Portugal) lodged on 6 April 2022 –TL
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, information profession, interpreting








C_2022257EN.01002602.xml










4.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 257/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Portugal) lodged on 6 April 2022 –TL
(Case C-242/22)
(2022/C 257/34)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Évora

Parties to the main proceedings

TL

Other party to the proceedings: Ministério Público

Question referred

Is it possible to interpret Articles 1 to 3 of [Directive 2010/64/EU] (1) and Article 3 of [Directive 2012/13/EU] (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, alone or in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, as meaning that they do not preclude a provision of national law which imposes a penalty of relative nullity, which must be pleaded, for failure to appoint an interpreter and to translate essential procedural documents for an accused person who does not understand the language of the proceedings, and which permits the rectification of that type of nullity owing to the passage of time?


(1)  Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010 L 280, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).
Case T-208/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Dorit-DFT v EUIPO — Erwin Suter (DORIT) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark DORIT — Earlier national company names — Relative ground for refusal — No use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance — Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food processing, machinery, maintenance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022237EN.01004902.xml










20.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/49






Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Dorit-DFT v EUIPO — Erwin Suter (DORIT)
(Case T-208/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark DORIT - Earlier national company names - Relative ground for refusal - No use in trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) and Article 52(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) and Article 60(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 237/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Erwin Suter AG Maschinenfabrik Retus (Kölliken, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Brecht, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2021 (Case R 127/2020-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen and Erwin Suter Maschinenfabrik Retus.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Dorit-DFT Fleischereimaschinen GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 228, 14.6.2021.
Case T-370/21: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEM AGNUBALANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark NUTRIFEM AGNUBALANCE — Earlier EU word mark NUTRIBEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aromatic plant, dietary product, food supplement, fruit product, medical plant, registered trade mark, tea, trade-mark law, vegetable product








C_2022222EN.01002702.xml










7.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/27






Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Biogena v EUIPO — Alter Farmacia (NUTRIFEM AGNUBALANCE)
(Case T-370/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark NUTRIFEM AGNUBALANCE - Earlier EU word mark NUTRIBEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 222/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Biogena GmbH & Co KG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: I. Schiffer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Alter Farmacia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 (Case R 1208/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Alter Farmacia and Biogena.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2021 (Case R 1208/2020-5) in so far as it concerns the goods in Class 5 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and the ‘dried kitchen herbs; preserved herbs and spices’ in Class 30 thereof;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Case C-241/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 April 2022 — Criminal proceedings against DX
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, data processing, data-processing law, fight against crime, offence, prevention of delinquency, protection of communications








C_2022276EN.01000301.xml










18.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 276/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 6 April 2022 — Criminal proceedings against DX
(Case C-241/22)
(2022/C 276/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Party to the main proceedings

DX

Questions referred







1.


Do legislative measures which relate to granting public authorities access to traffic and location data (including identification data) in connection with the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences fall within the scope of Directive 2002/58/EC (1) if they concern the granting of access to data which are not retained on the grounds of legislative measures within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC, but which are retained by the provider on some other ground?










2.








(a)


Do the … terms ‘serious criminal offences’ and ‘serious crime’ … [used in the judgments of the Court of Justice cited in the order for reference] (2) constitute autonomous concepts of European Union law, or is it incumbent on the competent authorities of the Member States themselves to give substance to those terms?










(b)


If these are indeed autonomous concepts of European Union law, in what way should it be established whether what is involved is a ‘serious criminal offence’ or ‘serious crime’?














3.


Can granting public authorities access to traffic and location data (other than mere identification data) for the purpose of the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences be permissible under Directive 2002/58/EC if no serious criminal offences or serious crime are involved, that is to say, if in the specific case the granting of access to such data — in so far as may be assumed — causes only a minor interference with, in particular, the right to the protection of the private life of the user as referred to in Article 2(b) of Directive 2002/58/EC?






(1)  Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37).

(2)  Cases C-203/15 (Tele2 Sverige), C-698/15 (Watson and Others), C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18 (La Quadrature du Net and Others), C-207/16 (Ministerio Fiscal) and C-746/18 (Prokuratuur).
Case T-568/20: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — MF v eu-LISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Post occupied requiring security clearance — Clearance refused by the national security authority — Termination of the contract — No request for a hearing — Right to be heard within the meaning of Article 11(5)(b) of Decision 2015/444)
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: rights of the defence, servant (EU), termination of employment, work contract








C_2022244EN.01002601.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/26






Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — MF v eu-LISA
(Case T-568/20) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Post occupied requiring security clearance - Clearance refused by the national security authority - Termination of the contract - No request for a hearing - Right to be heard within the meaning of Article 11(5)(b) of Decision 2015/444)
(2022/C 244/33)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: MF (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (represented by: M. Chiodi, acting as Agent, and by A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

Re:

By his action under Article 270 TFEU, lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 4 September 2020, the applicant seeks annulment, first, of the decision of the European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA) of 29 October 2019 terminating his employment contract and, second, to the extent necessary, of the decision of eu-LISA of 26 May 2020 rejecting his complaint of 29 January 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders MF to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 399, 23.11.2020.
Case T-375/21: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Representation of a geometric figure) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022266EN.01002801.xml










11.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 266/28






Order of the General Court of 6 April 2022 — Leinfelder Uhren München v EUIPO — Schafft (Representation of a geometric figure)
(Case T-375/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)
(2022/C 266/34)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Leinfelder Uhren München GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Lüft, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Nicolás Gómez and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Thomas Schafft (Munich, Germany) (represented by: V. Sandulache, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 March 2021 (Joined Cases R 1931/2018-2 and R 1936/2018-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Thomas Schafft and Leinfelder Uhren München.

Operative part of the order







1.


There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.










2.


Thomas Schafft shall bear the costs.






(1)  OJ C 329, 16.8.2021.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10584 – LUFTHANSA / VW / JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 168/02
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: airline, consultancy, economic concentration, holding company, information technology, merger control, motor vehicle industry, provision of services, subsidiary








C_2022168EN.01000201.xml










22.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 168/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10584 – LUFTHANSA / VW / JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 168/02)
On 6 April 2022, 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 32022M10584. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-244/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 6 April 2022 — NQ v Mara-Tóni Bt.
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labour law, labour relations, temporary employment agency, transfer of businesses, work contract








C_2022244EN.01001902.xml










27.6.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 6 April 2022 — NQ v Mara-Tóni Bt.
(Case C-244/22)
(2022/C 244/24)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NQ

Defendant: Mara-Tóni Bt.

Intervening parties: Foudre Kft., Tasavill Bt.

Questions referred







1.


Does an undertaking that employs, without State authorisation, workers who actually work for a client thereof, to which those workers are assigned, fall within the scope of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2008/104/EC? (1)











2.


Do workers who have an employment relationship with an undertaking which, in the context of a work contract, assigns them to another undertaking in order to work, with the company that puts them to work providing them with the equipment, tools and instructions necessary to carry out the work, fall within the scope of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive [2008/104]?










3.


In so far as, having regard to the foregoing, the applicant and the electricians should be classified as temporary agency workers, should it be considered that they form an economic unit, a specific group of workers who engage continuously in an economic activity for successive undertakings belonging to the same circle of persons, even though those undertakings lack State authorisation to engage lawfully, either as transferor or transferee, in the temporary transfer of workers as temporary-work agencies and also taking into account the fact that, in the case of temporary agency work, there is, in principle, no transfer of assets?










4.


In so far as those workers are to be classified as an economic unit, as a specific group of workers, do they fall within the scope of Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC (2) although they are workers assigned by a temporary-work agency?






(1)  Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9).

(2)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).
Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.)) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 151/04
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, medical device, medical diagnosis








C_2022151EN.01000401.xml










6.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/4






Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)


(Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1))

(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 151/04)

Decision granting an authorisation













Reference of the decision (2)



Date of decision


Substance name


Holder of the authorisation


Authorisation number


Authorised use


Date of expiry of review period


Reasons for the decision




C(2022) 1518


17 March 2022


4-(1,1,3,3-Tetra methylbutyl)phenol, ethoxylated
(4-tert-OPnEO)
EC No: -, CAS No:-


Diagnostica Stago, 3 allée Thérésa, CS 10009, 92665, Asnières sur Seine, France


REACH/22/4/0


Industrial use for its detergent properties in the process of cell lysing for the production of in-vitro diagnostic reagents (Asserachrom® HPIA, Asserachrom® HPIA–IgG and Asserachrom® PF4 and STA®-Néoplastine® R15 assays)


4 January 2028


In accordance with Article 60(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risk to human health and the environment from the uses of the substance and there are no suitable alternative substances or technologies.




REACH/22/4/1


Industrial use in view of controlling the amount of non-specific reactions in the production of in-vitro diagnostic reagents (STA® - Liatest® D-Di assays)


4 January 2033






(1)  OJ L 396, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

(2)  The decision is available on the European Commission website at: Authorisation (europa.eu).
Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 151/10
Date: 2022-04-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission
Subjects: Catalonia, Community of Madrid, Extremadura, Spain, air transport, inland transport, invitation to tender, services of general interest, transport regulations








C_2022151EN.01001001.xml










6.4.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 151/10






Commission information notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community
Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 151/10)






Member State


Spain




Concerned route


Badajoz-Madrid
Badajoz-Barcelona




Period of validity of the contract


2 years following the start of the operations, plus two additional years (2) if extension needed.




Deadline for submission of tenders


Not before 2 months following the date of publication of this notice




Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained







Ministerio de Transportes, Movilidad y Agenda Urbana




Dirección General de Aviación Civil




Subdirección General de Transporte Aéreo




Paseo de la Castellana 67




28071 Madrid




ESPAÑA




Tel. +34 915977505
Fax +34 915978643
Email: osp.dgac@mitma.es