29901Case C-46/19 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 April 2021 — Council of the European Union v Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Common Foreign and Security Policy — Combating terrorism — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons and entities — Freezing of funds — Common Position 2001/931/CFSP — Article 1(3), (4) and (6) — Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 — Article 2(3) — Retention of an organisation on the list of persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts — Conditions — Decision by a competent authority — Ongoing risk of involvement in terrorist activities — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Decision to review the national decision on which the initial inclusion was based — Obligation to state reasons)cjeu_case · 22 avril 2021
29902Arrêt de la Cour (quatrième chambre) du 22 avril 2021.#thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH et thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo contre Commission européenne.#Pourvoi – Union douanière – Règlement (UE) no 952/2013 – Article 211, paragraphe 6 – Autorisation de perfectionnement actif de certains produits d’acier électrique à grains orientés – Risque d’affectation négative des intérêts essentiels des producteurs de l’Union – Examen des conditions économiques – Règlement d’exécution (UE) 2015/2447 – Article 259 – Conclusions de la Commission européenne sur les conditions économiques – Article 263 TFUE – Acte non susceptible de recours.#Affaire C-572/18 P.cjeu_case · 22 avril 2021
29903Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2021.#thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH and thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission.#Appeal – Customs union – Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 – Article 211(6) – Authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products – Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers – Examination of the economic conditions – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 – Article 259 – European Commission’s conclusion on the economic conditions – Article 263 TFEU – Act not open to challenge.#Case C-572/18 P.cjeu_case · 22 avril 2021
29904Opinion of Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered on 22 April 2021.#José Cánovas Pardo SL v Club de Variedades Vegetales Protegidas.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Community plant variety rights – Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 – Article 96 – Calculation of the period of prescription for claims pursuant to Articles 94 and 95 – Point from which time starts to run – Date of grant of Community rights and of knowledge of the act and of the identity of the party liable – Date on which the course of action in question ceased – Repeated acts – Continuous acts – Restricted to acts carried out more than three years ago.#Case C-186/18.cjeu_case · 22 avril 2021
29905Case C-572/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 April 2021 — thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel GmbH, thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel Ugo v European Commission (Appeal — Customs union — Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 — Article 211(6) — Authorisation for inward processing of certain grain-oriented electrical steel products — Risk of adverse effect on the essential interests of EU producers — Examination of the economic conditions — Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 — Article 259 — European Commission’s conclusion on the economic conditions — Article 263 TFEU — Act not open to challenge)cjeu_case · 22 avril 2021
29906Case C-261/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2021 — F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and Others v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercatocjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29907Case C-255/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Reti Televisive Italiane SpA (RTI) v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni — AGCOMcjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29908Case C-251/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Senāts) (Latvia) lodged on 21 April 2021 — SIA Piltenes meži v Lauku atbalsta dienestscjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29909Case C-250/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v O. Fundusz Inwestycyjny Zamknięty represented by O. SAcjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29910Case C-249/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bottrop (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Fuhrmann-2-GmbH v B.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29911Case C-248/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2021 — Bundesrepublik Deutschland represented by the Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat v LEcjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29912Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2021.#Keun Jig Lee v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Application for a Community design representing table knives, forks and spoons – Lack of priority claim – Application for restitutio in integrum – Article 67(1) and (2) Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Duty of due care.#Case T-382/20.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29913Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2021.#Keun Jig Lee v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Application for a Community design representing table knives, forks and spoons – Lack of priority claim – Application for restitutio in integrum – Article 67(1) and (2) Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Duty of due care.#Case T-382/20.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29914Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2021.#Robert Klingel OHG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Application for registration of the EU figurative mark MEN+ – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Examination of the facts – Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons.#Case T-345/20.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29915Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 April 2021.#Robert Klingel OHG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Application for registration of the EU figurative mark MEN+ – Absolute ground for refusal – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Examination of the facts – Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 – Obligation to state reasons.#Case T-345/20.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29916Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 April 2021 (Extracts).#Bibita Group v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a beverage bottle – Prior international design – Ground for invalidity – Conflict with a prior design – Individual character – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – Different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(d)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.#Case T-326/20.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29917Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 April 2021 (Extracts).#Bibita Group v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Community design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered Community design representing a beverage bottle – Prior international design – Ground for invalidity – Conflict with a prior design – Individual character – Informed user – Degree of freedom of the designer – Different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(d)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.#Case T-326/20.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29918Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2021.#Hell Energy Magyarország Kft. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark HELL – Absolute grounds for refusal – No distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.#Case T-323/20.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29919Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2021.#Hell Energy Magyarország Kft. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Application for the EU word mark HELL – Absolute grounds for refusal – No distinctive character – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.#Case T-323/20.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021
29920Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 April 2021.#Apologistics GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU word mark APO – Absolute grounds for refusal – Descriptiveness – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Lack of distinctiveness – Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001).#Case T-282/20.cjeu_case · 21 avril 2021