do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-369/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shajin Ahmed v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Borders, asylum and immigration — Refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2011/95/EU — Article 17 — Exclusion from subsidiary protection status — Grounds — Conviction for a serious crime — Determination of seriousness on the basis of the penalty provided for under national law — Whether permissible — Need for an individual assessment)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, aid to refugees, area of freedom, security and justice, external border of the EU, immigration, national law, offence, penalty, refugee, right of asylum








C_2018408EN.01002502.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/25






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shajin Ahmed v Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal
(Case C-369/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Borders, asylum and immigration - Refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Directive 2011/95/EU - Article 17 - Exclusion from subsidiary protection status - Grounds - Conviction for a serious crime - Determination of seriousness on the basis of the penalty provided for under national law - Whether permissible - Need for an individual assessment))
(2018/C 408/32)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Shajin Ahmed

Defendant: Bevándorlási és Menekültügyi Hivatal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 17(1)(b) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State pursuant to which the applicant for subsidiary protection is deemed to have ‘committed a serious crime’ within the meaning of that provision, which may exclude him from that protection, on the basis of the sole criterion of the penalty provided for a specific crime under the law of that Member State. It is for the authority or competent national court ruling on the application for subsidiary protection to assess the seriousness of the crime at issue, by carrying out a full investigation into all the circumstances of the individual case concerned.


(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Case T-734/14: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — VTB Bank v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to property — Right to carry on an economic activity)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, bank, economic sanctions, international sanctions, ownership, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2018392EN.01001501.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/15






Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — VTB Bank v Council
(Case T-734/14) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Applicant’s name included and retained in the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to property - Right to carry on an economic activity))
(2018/C 392/18)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VTB Bank PAO, formerly VTB Bank OAO (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer, C. Claypoole, Solicitor, and M. Lester QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and S. Boelaert, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas, T. Scharf and D. Gauci, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13), as amended by Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 54), and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (OJ 2014 L 271, p. 3), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders VTB Bank PAO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.
Case C-575/18 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2018 by the Czech Republic against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 28 June 2018 in Case T-147/15 Czech Republic v Commission
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Member States' contribution, case-law (EU), infringement procedure (EU), own resources, payment, right to justice








C_2018408EN.01004301.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/43






Appeal brought on 13 September 2018 by the Czech Republic against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 28 June 2018 in Case T-147/15 Czech Republic v Commission
(Case C-575/18 P)
(2018/C 408/56)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and O. Serdula, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Form of order sought







—


set aside the order under appeal;










—


reject the plea of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission;










—


refer the case back to the General Court for it to rule on the form of order sought by the Czech Republic in the application; and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
In the order under appeal the General Court incorrectly concluded that the contested act, having regard in particular to the Commission’s lack of power to adopt a decision in the field of traditional own resources, was not an act against which an action could be brought under Article 263 TFEU, which according to the General Court did not conflict with the Czech Republic’s right to effective judicial protection within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, in so far as it was possible for the Czech Republic to pay the disputed amount conditionally, express objections to the soundness of the Commission’s legal view, and wait for the Commission to make an application under Article 258 TFEU.
The General Court’s conclusions are contrary to Article 263 TFU in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, as conditional payment does not ensure that the dispute will in future be judged on the merits by the Court of Justice. That follows from the settled case-law of the Court of Justice on the Commission’s discretion in connection with proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations, from the absence of any provision on the concept of conditional payment, and in particular from the previous practice of the Commission in this field.
Case T-184/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Position of four green squares on a scale) (EU trade mark — Application for EU trade mark consisting of four green squares on a scale — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, household electrical appliance, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018392EN.01002701.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/27






Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Leifheit v EUIPO (Position of four green squares on a scale)
(Case T-184/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU trade mark consisting of four green squares on a scale - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 392/33)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Leifheit AG (Nassau, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt, V. Töbelmann and P. Schneider, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by: V. Mensing and A. Schifko, and subsequently by: V. Mensing and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 (Case R 1115/2016-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of four green squares on a scale as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Leifheit AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 161, 22.5.2017.
Case T-515/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Almaz-Antey v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine — Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply — Proportionality — Error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Fundamental rights)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, fundamental rights, international sanctions, legal person, principle of proportionality








C_2018392EN.01002101.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/21






Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Almaz-Antey v Council
(Case T-515/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine - Retention of the applicant’s name on the list of entities to which the restrictive measures apply - Proportionality - Error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Fundamental rights))
(2018/C 392/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp., formerly OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Haak, C. Stumpf and M. Brüggemann, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/971 of 22 June 2015 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 157, p. 50); (ii) the letter from the Council dated 31 July 2015 by which the Council stated that the applicant should remain subject to the measures in Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 13) and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 of 31 July 2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 229, p. 1); (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/2431 of 21 December 2015 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2015 L 334, p. 22); and (iv) Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/1071 of 1 July 2016 amending Decision 2014/512 (OJ 2016 L 178, p. 21), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9035 — Charlesbank/Partners Group/H-Food Holdings) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, investment company, merger control








C_2018332EN.01000102.xml










19.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9035 — Charlesbank/Partners Group/H-Food Holdings)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 332/02)
On 13 September 2018, 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 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 32018M9035. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 September 2018 on the draft Council implementing decision approving the conclusion by Eurojust of the Agreement on Cooperation between Eurojust and Albania (08688/2018 – C8-0251/2018 – 2018/0807(CNS))
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Albania, Eurojust, cooperation agreement (EU), judicial cooperation, ratification of an agreement








C_2019433EN.01030601.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/306






P8_TA(2018)0347
Cooperation Agreement between Eurojust and Albania *
European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 September 2018 on the draft Council implementing decision approving the conclusion by Eurojust of the Agreement on Cooperation between Eurojust and Albania (08688/2018 – C8-0251/2018 – 2018/0807(CNS))
(Consultation)
(2019/C 433/39)

The European Parliament,







—


having regard to the Council draft (08688/2018),










—


having regard to Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam, and Article 9 of Protocol No 36 on transitional provisions, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0251/2018),










—


having regard to Rule 78c of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0275/2018),












1.


Approves the Council draft;












2.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;












3.


Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament;












4.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.
Case T-104/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark apo — Earlier EU figurative mark representing an apple and earlier EU word marks APPLE — Relative grounds for refusal — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, electronic device, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018392EN.01002602.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/26






Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2018 — Apple v EUIPO — Apo International (apo)
(Case T-104/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark apo - Earlier EU figurative mark representing an apple and earlier EU word marks APPLE - Relative grounds for refusal - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 392/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Olsen and P. Andreottola, Solicitors, and by G. Tritton, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Apo International Co. Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2016 (Case R 698/2016-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Apple and Apo International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 1 December 2016 (Case R 698/2016-4);










2.


Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 129, 24.4.2017.
Case C-539/17 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekapideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 — Grant agreement — Non-eligible costs — European Commission decision on recovery — Action brought by the recipient before the General Court of the European Union on the basis of Article 272 TFEU — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU control, Framework Programme for Research and Development, audit, civil code, contract, national law, proof, subcontracting








C_2018408EN.01003501.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/35






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 — Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekapideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon v European Commission
(Case C-539/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Seventh Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration 2007-2013 - Grant agreement - Non-eligible costs - European Commission decision on recovery - Action brought by the recipient before the General Court of the European Union on the basis of Article 272 TFEU - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
(2018/C 408/45)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekapideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon (represented by: K. Damis, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Kyratsou and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the order







1.


The appeal is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.










2.


Talanton AE — Simvouleftiki-Ekapideftiki Etaireia Dianomon, Parochis Ipiresion Marketing kai Dioikisis Epicheiriseon shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Case T-560/18: Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)
Date: 2018-09-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, medical device








C_2018399EN.01005601.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/56






Action brought on 13 September 2018 — Atos Medical v EUIPO — Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb (medical plasters)
(Case T-560/18)
(2018/C 399/72)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Atos Medical GmbH (Troisdorf, Germany) (represented by: K. Middelhoff, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Fahl Medizintechnik-Vertrieb GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Design at issue: Community design No 1339246-0004

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 June 2018 in Case R 2216/2016-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs,




Should the other party intervene in the proceedings, the applicant further claims that the Court should:






—


order the other party to bear its own costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Articles 5 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 25(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.