do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joint statement by the European Parliament and the Council relating to Regulation (EU) 2018/1240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) and amending Regulations (EU) No 1077/2011, (EU) No 515/2014, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2016/1624 and (EU) 2017/2226
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: EU visa policy, Schengen Agreement, border control, data protection, external border of the EU, foreign national, information system, personal data, terrorism, travel








C_2018333EN.01000101.xml










19.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 333/1






Joint statement by the European Parliament and the Council relating to Regulation (EU) 2018/1240 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 September 2018 establishing a European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) and amending Regulations (EU) No 1077/2011, (EU) No 515/2014, (EU) 2016/399, (EU) 2016/1624 and (EU) 2017/2226 (1)

(2018/C 333/01)
The costs for the operation and maintenance of the ETIAS Information System, the ETIAS Central Unit and the ETIAS National Units, will be covered entirely by the revenues generated by the fees. The fee should therefore be adapted as necessary, having regard to the costs. This includes both costs incurred by EU Member States and those incurred by Schengen Associated Countries in this regard, in accordance with the provisions of the ETIAS Regulation. The costs incurred in connection with the development of the ETIAS Information System, the integration of the existing national border infrastructure and the connection to the National Uniform Interface as well as the hosting of the National Uniform Interface and the set-up of the ETIAS Central Unit and ETIAS National Units, including those incurred by EU Member States as well as Schengen Associated Countries, will be borne by the Internal Security Fund (Borders and Visa) respectively its successor(s).
Therefore, these costs should not be considered for the calculation of the contribution of the Schengen Associated Countries to ETIAS under the respective Association Agreement and the relevant specific arrangements for the participation of the Schengen Associated Countries in the agencies. This should be taken into account in particular in the context of the negotiations on the successor(s) to the Internal Security Fund (Borders and Visas) and the specific arrangements for the participation of the Schengen Associated Countries therein.
The European Parliament and the Council call on the Commission to present a proposal on the specific arrangements provided for in Article 95 of this Regulation without delay after its adoption.


(1)  OJ L 236, 19.9.2018, p. 1.
Case T-623/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MAIN AUTO WHEELS — Earlier EU figurative marks VW — Absolute ground for refusal — No 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) — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018399EN.01003301.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/33






Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — Paalupaikka (MAIN AUTO WHEELS)
(Case T-623/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MAIN AUTO WHEELS - Earlier EU figurative marks VW - Absolute ground for refusal - No 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) - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2018/C 399/44)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla, S. Risthaus and J. Engberding, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Paalupaikka Oy (Iisalmi, Finland)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2016 (Case R 2189/2015-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Volkswagen and Paalupaikka.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.
Case T-604/16: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HD v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Family allowances — Household allowance — Education allowance — Dependent child allowance — Conditions for granting — Deduction of an allowance of like nature received from another source — Recovery of undue payments — Decisions to end entitlement to certain allowances — Error of law — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, education grant, family benefit








C_2018399EN.01003201.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/32






Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — HD v Parliament
(Case T-604/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Family allowances - Household allowance - Education allowance - Dependent child allowance - Conditions for granting - Deduction of an allowance of like nature received from another source - Recovery of undue payments - Decisions to end entitlement to certain allowances - Error of law - Manifest error of assessment))
(2018/C 399/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: HD (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the decisions of the Parliament of 21 September, 5 October, 27 November and 15 December 2015 recovering the amounts alleged to have been unduly received by the applicant in respect of the education allowance, secondly, of the decisions of the Parliament of 5, 13, 23 October, of the 5, 11 and 12 November 2015 recovering the amounts alleged to have been unduly received by her in respect of education allowance and dependent child allowance and depriving her of her right to household allowance and, thirdly, ‘in so far as necessary’, of the decision of 21 April 2016 rejecting her complaint.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders HD to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-34/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-61/17: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Selimovic v Parliament (Law governing the institutions — European Parliament — Psychological harassment — Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of a reprimand — Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament — Right to good administration — Right of access to the file — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty — Misuse of power — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, abuse of power, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, liability, principle of legal certainty, psychological harassment








C_2018392EN.01002301.xml










29.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 392/23






Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — Selimovic v Parliament
(Case T-61/17) (1)

((Law governing the institutions - European Parliament - Psychological harassment - Decision of the President of the Parliament imposing on a Member of the European Parliament the penalty of a reprimand - Article 166 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament - Right to good administration - Right of access to the file - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty - Misuse of power - Non-contractual liability))
(2018/C 392/27)
Language of the case: Swedish

Parties


Applicant: Jasenko Selimovic (Hägersten, Sweden) (represented initially by: B. Leidhammar and subsequently by: S. Scheiman, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, L. Tapper Brandberg and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions of the President of the Parliament of 22 November 2016 and the decision of the Bureau of the Parliament of 12 December 2016 imposing the penalty of a reprimand on the applicant and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the request for an expedited procedure as manifestly inadmissible;










2.


Dismisses the action;










3.


Orders Mr Jasenko Selimovic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 121, 18.4.2017.
Corrigendum to Passenger Name Records (PNR) — Passenger Information Units — List of the Passenger Information Units referred to in Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime (This list reflects the established Passenger Information Units in the Member States responsible for collecting PNR data from air carriers, storing and processing those data and transferring those data or the result of processing them to the competent authorities referred to in Article 7 of the PNR Directive) (OJ C 230, 2.7.2018)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, air safety, air transport, data collection, data protection, data transmission, exchange of information, protection of privacy, terrorism, traveller








C_2018332EN.01000901.xml










19.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/9






Corrigendum to Passenger Name Records (PNR)
Passenger Information Units — List of the Passenger Information Units referred to in Article 4 of Directive (EU) 2016/681 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of passenger name record (PNR) data for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime

(This list reflects the established Passenger Information Units in the Member States responsible for collecting PNR data from air carriers, storing and processing those data and transferring those data or the result of processing them to the competent authorities referred to in Article 7 of the PNR Directive)

(
Official Journal of the European Union C 230 of 2 July 2018
)
(2018/C 332/09)
On page 6:
The following Member States which have notified the establishment of their Passenger Information Unit are added:






—


Germany: Bundeskriminalamt Referat ZI 15-PIU










—


Luxembourg: PIU LUXEMBOURG
Case T-242/17: Order of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — SC v Eulex Kosovo (Action for annulment and for damages — Arbitration clause — Common foreign and security policy — Staff of EU international missions — Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts — Internal competition — Impartiality of the selection board — Non-renewal of a fixed term contract — Partial reclassification of the action — Contractual liability — Non-contractual liability — Material and non-material harm — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: competition (EU), contract staff, equal treatment, indemnification, labour standard, remuneration of work, servant (EU), termination of a contract, work contract, working conditions








C_2018427EN.01006701.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/67






Order of the General Court of 19 September 2018 — SC v Eulex Kosovo
(Case T-242/17) (1)

(Action for annulment and for damages - Arbitration clause - Common foreign and security policy - Staff of EU international missions - Consecutive fixed-term employment contracts - Internal competition - Impartiality of the selection board - Non-renewal of a fixed term contract - Partial reclassification of the action - Contractual liability - Non-contractual liability - Material and non-material harm - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)
(2018/C 427/89)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: SC (represented by: L. Moro and A. Kunst, lawyers)

Defendant: Eulex Kosovo (represented by: E. Raoult, lawyer)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for the internal competition organised by Eulex Kosovo in 2016 for the position of prosecutor (EK 30077) and of the decision of that mission not to renew her fixed-term contract, secondly, under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the material and non-material harm that the applicant allegedly sustained as a result of the infringement by Eulex Kosovo of its non-contractual obligations and, thirdly, under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that Eulex Kosovo be ordered to pay compensation for breach of its contractual obligations

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


SC is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 231, 17.7.2017.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018332EN.01000601.xml










19.9.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

18 September 2018
(2018/C 332/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1697 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,21 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4602 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88963 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4179 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1245 




ISK


Iceland króna


127,60 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5473 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,448 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,82 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3008 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6492 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,5053 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6244 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5237 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,1755 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7752 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,6031 




KRW


South Korean won


1 315,11 




ZAR


South African rand


17,4579 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


8,0317 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4295 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 379,40 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,8455 




PHP


Philippine peso


63,311 




RUB


Russian rouble


79,1659 




THB


Thai baht


38,091 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,8481 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,0671 




INR


Indian rupee


85,3610 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-551/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Oblitas Ruzza/Council
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, presidential election, principle of proportionality, proof








C_2018427EN.01008602.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/86






Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Oblitas Ruzza/Council
(Case T-551/18)
(2018/C 427/114)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sandra Oblitas Ruzza (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and L. Giuliano, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (2), in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and










—


order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment and lack of precise and consistent evidence.






—


In this regard, the applicant submits that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment concerning the applicant’s functions and roles and did not disclose a body of precise and consistent evidence in support of its claims. The applicant further claims that the Council failed to conduct a proper assessment of the evidence or, at the very least, that such assessment was manifestly erroneous.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested acts constitute an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the applicant’s fundamental right to property.






(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/901 of 25 June 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 12).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/899 of 25 June 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 160I, 25.6.2018, p. 5).
Case T-556/18: Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Sensient Colors Europe v Commission
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: foodstuff, human nutrition, market approval, natural food colouring








C_2018399EN.01005401.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/54






Action brought on 19 September 2018 — Sensient Colors Europe v Commission
(Case T-556/18)
(2018/C 399/69)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sensient Colors Europe GmbH (Geesthacht, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer, D. Zechmeister und W. Berlit, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare as null and void the defendant’s decision of 31 July 2018 (DG Sante/E2/RP/amf(2018)4523972) to classify as invalid the request to place a novel food on the Union market as well as the update of the Union list provided for in Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) with document number NF 2018/0355, and end the application procedure; and










—


order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, namely infringement of Article 6(1) and 6(5) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469, (2) and Article 10(1) in conjunction with Article 10(3) and Article 11(1) or in conjunction with Article 12(2) of Regulation 2015/2283.
It submits, inter alia, that the defendant incorrectly assumed that the colouring extract based on dried butterfly pea flowers, on which the application is based, did not fall within the scope of Regulation 2015/2283 and was a food additive within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Regulation No 1333/2008.


(1)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on novel foods, amending Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1852/2001 (OJ 2015, L 327, p. 1).

(2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2469 of 20 December 2017 laying down administrative and scientific requirements for applications referred to in Article 10 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 of the European Parliament and of the Council on novel food (OJ 2017, L 351, p. 64).
Case C-327/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued with respect to R O (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Grounds for non-execution — Article 50 TEU — Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union — Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal)
Date: 2018-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, United Kingdom, extradition, penal institution, withdrawal from the EU








C_2018408EN.01003301.xml










12.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 408/33






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) — Ireland) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued with respect to R O
(Case C-327/18 PPU) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Grounds for non-execution - Article 50 TEU - Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union - Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal))
(2018/C 408/43)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Party to the main proceedings

R O

Operative part of the judgment

Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that mere notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with that article does not have the consequence that, in the event that that Member State issues a European arrest warrant with respect to an individual, the executing Member State must refuse to execute that European arrest warrant or postpone its execution pending clarification of the law that will be applicable in the issuing Member State after its withdrawal from the European Union. In the absence of substantial grounds to believe that the person who is the subject of that European arrest warrant is at risk of being deprived of rights recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, following the withdrawal from the European Union of the issuing Member State, the executing Member State cannot refuse to execute that European arrest warrant while the issuing Member State remains a member of the European Union.


(1)  OJ C 349, 16.7.2018.