do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-129/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA))
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Economic Area, customs warehouse, import, labelling, launching of a product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018328EN.01001401.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/14






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA
(Case C-129/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA)))
(2018/C 328/16)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV

Respondents: Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a mark is entitled to oppose a third party, without its consent, removing all the signs identical to that mark and affixing other signs on products placed in the customs warehouse, as in the main proceedings, with a view to importing them or trading them in the EEA where they have never yet been marketed.


(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case C-338/17: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency — Directive 2008/94/EC — Articles 3 and 4 — Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions — Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions — Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, employer, financial solvency, labour law, liability, pay, social policy, termination of employment, wage earner








C_2018328EN.01001901.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/19






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo v ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund
(Case C-338/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of employer’s insolvency - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 3 and 4 - Employees’ claims borne by guarantee institutions - Limitation on the liability of guarantee institutions - Exclusion of wage claims arising over three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings))
(2018/C 328/23)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Virginie Marie Gabriel Guigo

Defendant:‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ Fund

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as Article 4(1) of the Zakon za garantiranite vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite pri nesastoyatelnost na rabotodatelia (Law on employees’ guaranteed claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency), which does not guarantee the wage claims of employees whose employment relationship ended more than three months prior to the entry in the commercial register of the judicial decision initiating insolvency proceedings in respect of their employer.


(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018261EN.01000501.xml










25.7.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 261/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

24 July 2018
(2018/C 261/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1706 




JPY


Japanese yen


130,06 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4504 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89178 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3278 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1626 




ISK


Iceland króna


124,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5605 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,761 




HUF


Hungarian forint


326,64 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3179 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6398 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,7054 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5797 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5393 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1846 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7192 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5967 




KRW


South Korean won


1 320,85 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6041 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9561 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3975 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 972,88 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7550 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,366 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,4444 




THB


Thai baht


39,051 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4184 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,0446 




INR


Indian rupee


80,7100 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-445/17: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings 8703, 8704 and 8705 — Hearses)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, death, motor car, specification of tariff heading








C_2018328EN.01002002.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/20






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli v Pilato SpA
(Case C-445/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8703, 8704 and 8705 - Hearses))
(2018/C 328/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

Defendant: Pilato SpA

Operative part of the judgment

The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that hearses such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings must be classified under heading 8703 of that combined nomenclature.


(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2016.
Case C-139/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc. (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Opposition proceedings — Application for the word mark medialbo — Earlier mark MediaLB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark — No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, education, electrical equipment, registered trade mark, scientific apparatus, trade-mark law








C_2018328EN.01001501.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/15






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Microchip Technology, Inc.
(Case C-139/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Opposition proceedings - Application for the word mark medialbo - Earlier mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Notice of opposition filed by a person who is not the proprietor of the earlier mark - No formal application for registration of the transfer of the earlier mark within the opposition period - Inadmissibility))
(2018/C 328/17)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (represented by: C. Russ, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Botis and M. Fischer, acting as Agents), Microchip Technology, Inc. (represented by: C. Bergmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders QuaMa Quality Management GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Case C-135/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users — Decision (EU) 2015/1585 — Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU — Admissibility — Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, admissibility, control of State aid, electrical energy, energy consumption, energy industry, renewable energy








C_2018328EN.01000401.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/4






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-135/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Scheme for the support of renewable electricity sources and energy-intensive users - Decision (EU) 2015/1585 - Validity in the light of Article 107 TFEU - Admissibility - Failure by the applicants in the main proceedings to bring an action for annulment))
(2018/C 328/04)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Georgsmarienhütte GmbH, Stahlwerk Bous GmbH, Schmiedag GmbH, Harz Guss Zorge GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), by decision of 23 February 2016, is inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.
Case C-140/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167, 168 and 184 — Deduction of input tax — Adjustment — Immovable property acquired as capital goods — Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT — Public body — Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, investment, municipality, tax relief








C_2018328EN.01001502.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/15






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo
(Case C-140/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 167, 168 and 184 - Deduction of input tax - Adjustment - Immovable property acquired as capital goods - Initial allocation to an activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax and subsequently also to an activity subject to VAT - Public body - Taxable-person status at the time of the taxable transaction))
(2018/C 328/18)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej

Defendant: Gmina Ryjewo

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 167, 168 and 184 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of the neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as not precluding a body governed by public law from being entitled to a right to adjustment of deductions of value added tax paid on immovable property acquired as capital goods in a situation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where, at the time of the acquisition of those goods, first, they could, by their very nature, be used both for taxable activities and for non-taxable activities but were initially used for non-taxable activities, and second, that public body had not expressly stated its intention to use those goods for a taxable activity but had also not excluded the possibility that they might be used for such a purpose, so long as it follows from an assessment of all the factual circumstances, which it is for the referring court to carry out, that the condition laid down by Article 168 of Directive 2006/112, according to which the taxable person must have acted as a taxable person at the time when it made that acquisition, is satisfied.


(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Case C-205/17: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Collection and treatment of urban waste water — Directive 91/271/EEC — Articles 3 and 4 — Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Penalty payment and lump sum)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement procedure (EU), pollution control measures, sanction (EU), urban area, wastewater, water pollution, water treatment








C_2018328EN.01001701.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/17






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-205/17) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Collection and treatment of urban waste water - Directive 91/271/EEC - Articles 3 and 4 - Judgment of the Court declaring a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Penalty payment and lump sum))
(2018/C 328/20)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;










2.


Orders that, if the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, the Kingdom of Spain must pay the European Commission a penalty payment of EUR 10 950 000 for each six-month period of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260), has been complied with in full, the actual amount of which must be calculated at the end of each six-month period by reducing the total amount relating to each of those periods by a percentage corresponding to the proportion that the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations whose urban waste water treatment and/or collection systems have been rendered compliant with the judgment of 14 April 2011, Commission v Spain (C-343/10, not published, EU:C:2011:260) at the end of the period in question bears to the number of population equivalents of the agglomerations not having such systems on the day of delivery of the present judgment;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the European Commission a lump sum of EUR 12 million;










4.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 195, 19.6.2017.
Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/1150 of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 25 July 2018 appointing a Judge to the Court of Justice
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: Court of Justice (EU), appointment of members, member of the Court of Justice (EU)








L_2018209EN.01000101.xml










20.8.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 209/1








            DECISION (EU, Euratom) 2018/1150 OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES
         
of 25 July 2018
         
appointing a Judge to the Court of Justice


THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 19 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 253 and 255 thereof,


Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a(1) thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


The terms of office of 14 Judges and 5 Advocates-General of the Court of Justice are due to expire on 6 October 2018. Appointments to these posts should therefore be made for the period beginning on 7 October 2018.












(2)


The term of office of these Judges and Advocates-General will be six years.












(3)


Mr Nuno José CARDOSO DA SILVA PIÇARRA has been nominated for the post of Judge of the Court of Justice.












(4)


The panel set up by Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has given an opinion on the suitability of Mr Nuno José CARDOSO DA SILVA PIÇARRA to perform the duties of Judge of the Court of Justice,





HAVE ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
Mr Nuno José CARDOSO DA SILVA PIÇARRA is hereby appointed Judge of the Court of Justice for the period from 7 October 2018 to 6 October 2024.


Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 25 July 2018.


The President

N. MARSCHIK
Case C-588/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — incurred by the Kingdom of Spain — Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Castile-Leon, EAFRD, EAGF, aid to agriculture, financial control, less-favoured agricultural area, less-favoured region, principle of proportionality, rural development








C_2018328EN.01002102.xml










17.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/21






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 July 2018 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
(Case C-588/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - incurred by the Kingdom of Spain - Aid granted in respect of areas with natural handicaps and agri-environment measures in the Rural Development Program of the Autonomous Community of Castile and León))
(2018/C 328/27)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Other party: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Case T-466/18: Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)
Date: 2018-07-25
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, air conditioning, heating, household electrical appliance, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, thermal equipment, trade-mark law








C_2018341EN.01002501.xml










24.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 341/25






Action brought on 25 July 2018 — Eurolamp v EUIPO (EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology)
(Case T-466/18)
(2018/C 341/36)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Eurolamp AVEE Eisagogis kai Emporias Lamptiron (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: A. Argyriadis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for registration in the European Union of the figurative colour mark ‘EUROLAMP pioneers in new technology’ representing a combination of the following colours: green and black — Application for registration No 16 180 821

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 May 2018 in Case R 1359/2017-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:






—


hold this action to be admissible;










—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold in its entirety the application No 16 180 821 for trade mark registration in the European Union with respect to all the claimed goods;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001.