35681Case C-766/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), M.J. Dairies EOOD (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Criteria for assessment — Applicability in the case of an earlier collective mark — Interdependence between the similarity of the trade marks at issue and that of the goods or services covered by those marks)cjeu_case · March 5, 2020
35682Case C-679/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní soud v Ostravě — Czech Republic) — OPR-Finance s. r. o. v GK (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Credit agreements for consumers — Article 8 — Creditor’s obligation to assess the consumer’s creditworthiness — National rules — Whether limitation may be invoked against the objection of nullity of the agreement raised by the consumer — Article 23 — Penalties — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature — National court — Examination by the court of its own motion as to whether that obligation has been complied with)cjeu_case · March 5, 2020
35683Case C-211/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — IDEALMED III — Serviços de Saúde, SA v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 132(1)(b) — Exemptions — Hospital and medical care — Hospital establishments — Services provided under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law — Articles 377 and 391 — Derogations — Right to opt for a taxation regime — Maintenance of the taxation — Variation in the conditions for the exercise of the activity)cjeu_case · March 5, 2020
35684Case C-125/20: Action brought on 4 March 2020 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spaincjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35685Case C-123/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 March 2020 — Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design & Holding GmbH, WHcjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35686Case C-121/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, zittingsplaats Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 4 March 2020 — VG v Minister van Buitenlandse Zakencjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35687Case T-180/19: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2020 — Bibita Group v EUIPO — Benkomers (Beverage bottles) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a beverage bottle — Earlier international design — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35688Arrêt de la Cour (première chambre) du 4 mars 2020.#Telecom Italia SpA contre Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico et Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Rapprochement des législations – Services de télécommunications – Mise en œuvre de la fourniture d’un réseau ouvert de télécommunications – Directive 97/13/CE – Taxes et redevances applicables aux licences individuelles – Régime transitoire instituant une redevance au-delà de celles autorisées par la directive 97/13/CE – Autorité de la chose jugée attachée à un arrêt d’une juridiction supérieure estimé contraire au droit de l’Union.#Affaire C-34/19.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35689Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020.#Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Telecommunication services — Implementation of provision of an open telecommunications network — Directive 97/13/EC — Fees and charges for individual licences — Transitional arrangements establishing a charge beyond those authorised by Directive 97/13/EC — Force of res judicata attaching to a higher court judgment considered contrary to EU law.#Case C-34/19.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35691Opinion of Advocate General Pitruzzella delivered on 4 March 2020.#Donex Shipping and Forwarding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common commercial policy – Dumping – Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China – Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 – Validity – Regulation (EC) No 384/96 – Article 2(10) and (11) – Rights of the defence.#Case C-104/19.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35692Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar delivered on 4 March 2020.#Orange Romania SA v Autoritatea Naţională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP).#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 95/46/EC – Article 2(h) and Article 7(a) – Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – Article 4(11) and Article 6(1)(a) – Processing of personal data and protection of private life 20220737 – Collection and storage of the copies of identity documents by a provider of mobile telecommunications services – Concept of the data subject’s ‘consent’ – Freely given, specific and informed indication of wishes – Declaration of consent by means of a tick box – Signing of the contract by the data subject – Burden of proof.#Case C-61/19.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35693Case C-34/19: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Telecom Italia SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Telecommunication services — Implementation of provision of an open telecommunications network — Directive 97/13/EC — Fees and charges for individual licences — Transitional arrangements establishing a charge beyond those authorised by Directive 97/13/EC — Force of res judicata attaching to a higher court judgment considered contrary to EU law)cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35694Arrêt de la Cour (huitième chambre) du 4 mars 2020.#Teritorialna direktsia « Severna morska » kam Agentsia Mitnitsi contre « Schenker » EOOD.#Renvoi préjudiciel – Union douanière – Règlement (UE) no 952/2013 – Soustraction à la surveillance douanière – Vol de marchandises placées sous le régime de l’entrepôt douanier – Article 242 – Responsable de la soustraction – Titulaire de l’autorisation d’entrepôt douanier – Sanction pour infraction à la réglementation douanière – Article 42 – Obligation de payer une somme correspondant à la valeur des marchandises manquantes – Cumul avec une sanction pécuniaire – Proportionnalité.#Affaire C-655/18.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35695Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 March 2020.#Teritorialna direktsia Severna morska, successor in law to Mitnitsa Varna v „Schenker“ EOOD.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad - Varna.#Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Removal from customs supervision — Theft of goods placed under a customs warehousing procedure — Article 242 — Person responsible for the removal — Holder of the authorisation for customs warehousing — Penalty for failure to comply with the customs legislation — Article 42 — Obligation to pay a sum corresponding to the value of the missing goods — Combination with a pecuniary penalty — Proportionality.#Case C-655/18.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35696Arrêt de la Cour (neuvième chambre) du 4 mars 2020.#CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA contre Commission européenne.#Pourvoi – Concurrence – Aides d’État – Entreprise exploitant des réseaux de liaisons par autobus dans la région de Campanie (Italie) – Compensation pour des obligations de service public versée par les autorités italiennes à la suite d’une décision du Consiglio di Stato (Conseil d’État, Italie) – Décision de la Commission européenne déclarant la mesure d’aide illégale et incompatible avec le marché intérieur.#Affaire C-587/18 P.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35697Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020.#CSTP Azienda della Mobilità SpA v European Commission.#Appeal — Competition — State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) — European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market.#Case C-587/18 P.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35698Arrêt de la Cour (neuvième chambre) du 4 mars 2020.#Buonotourist Srl contre Commission européenne.#Pourvoi – Concurrence – Aides d’État – Entreprise exploitant des réseaux de liaisons par autobus dans la région de Campanie (Italie) – Compensation pour des obligations de service public versée par les autorités italiennes à la suite d’une décision du Consiglio di Stato (Conseil d’État, Italie) – Décision de la Commission européenne déclarant la mesure d’aide illégale et incompatible avec le marché intérieur.#Affaire C-586/18 P.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35699Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 4 March 2020.#Buonotourist Srl v European Commission.#Appeal — Competition — State aid — Undertaking operating bus route networks in the Regione Campania (Campania Region, Italy) — Compensation for public service obligations paid by the Italian authorities following a judgment of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State, Italy) — European Commission decision declaring the aid measure unlawful and incompatible with the internal market.#Case C-586/18 P.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020
35700Arrêt de la Cour (quatrième chambre) du 4 mars 2020.#Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO) contre Equivalenza Manufactory SL.#Pourvoi – Marque de l’Union européenne – Règlement (CE) no 207/2009 – Article 8, paragraphe 1, sous b) – Risque de confusion – Appréciation de la similitude des signes en conflit – Appréciation globale du risque de confusion – Prise en compte des conditions de commercialisation – Neutralisation d’une similitude phonétique par des différences visuelle et conceptuelle – Conditions de la neutralisation.#Affaire C-328/18 P.cjeu_case · March 4, 2020