do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joint statement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the legal framework of the European Solidarity Corps and amending Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013, Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 and Decision No 1313/2013/EU
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Parliament
Subjects: EU aid, EU financing, EU office or agency, international voluntary worker, voluntary organisation, voluntary work, young person, youth employment








C_2018358EN.01000101.xml










4.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 358/1






Joint statement of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the legal framework of the European Solidarity Corps and amending Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013, Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 and Decision No 1313/2013/EU (1)

(2018/C 358/01)
Without prejudice to the powers of the budgetary authority, 80 % of the budget for the implementation of the Programme in 2019 and 2020 should be made available through specified redeployments under Subheading 1a (Competiveness for growth and jobs) of the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and redeployments from the Union Civil Protection Mechanism and the LIFE Programme. However, no further redeployments shall be made from the Erasmus+ Programme, in addition to the amount of 231 800 000 EUR referred to in the proposal from the Commission (COM (2017)0262).
The remaining 20 % of the budget for the implementation of the Programme in 2019 and 2020 should be drawn from the available margins under Subheading 1a of the 2014-2020 MFF.
There is a common understanding that the Commission will ensure that the necessary appropriations are made available through the normal annual budgetary procedure in a balanced and prudent way.

Statement of the Commission

The Commission confirms that the use of appropriations from technical assistance resources at the initiative of the Commission under the Common Provisions Regulation (in particular redeployments from the European Social Fund and from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) for the financing of the European Solidarity Corps in 2018 will not be used by the Commission as a precedent for the proposal on the European Solidarity Corps post-2020 (COM(2018)0440)).


(1)  OJ L 250, 4.10.2018, p. 1.
Case C-478/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — IQ v JP (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 15 — Transfer to a court better placed to hear the case — Scope — Article 19 — Lis pendens)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, parental responsibility








C_2018436EN.01001401.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/14






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — IQ v JP
(Case C-478/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 15 - Transfer to a court better placed to hear the case - Scope - Article 19 - Lis pendens))
(2018/C 436/16)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Cluj

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: IQ

Respondent: JP

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not applying in circumstances, such as those in the main proceedings, in which both courts seised have jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter under Articles 12 and 8, respectively, of that regulation.


(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Case C-379/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Società Immobiliare Al Bosco Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial co-operation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters — Time limit laid down in the law of the Member State addressed for enforcing a preventive attachment order — Applicability of that time limit to a preventive attachment instrument obtained in another Member State and declared enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, limitation of legal proceedings, seizure of goods








C_2018436EN.01001201.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/12






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Società Immobiliare Al Bosco Srl
(Case C-379/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial co-operation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial matters - Time limit laid down in the law of the Member State addressed for enforcing a preventive attachment order - Applicability of that time limit to a preventive attachment instrument obtained in another Member State and declared enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought))
(2018/C 436/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Società Immobiliare Al Bosco Srl

Operative part of the judgment

Article 38 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a time limit for the enforcement of a preventive attachment order, from being applied in the case of an order which has been adopted in another Member State and is enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought.


(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Case T-736/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Lincoln Global v EUIPO (FLEXCUT) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark FLEXCUT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machine tool, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2018427EN.01006301.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/63






Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Lincoln Global v EUIPO (FLEXCUT)
(Case T-736/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark FLEXCUT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2018/C 427/83)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lincoln Global, Inc. (Santa Fe Springs, California, United States) (represented by: K. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 August 2017 (Case R 2225/2016-4), relating to the application for registration of the word sign FLEXCUT as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Lincoln Global, Inc., to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.
Case T-17/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Constantinescu v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Education — Admission to childcare facilities — Decision to enrol a child at childcare facilities different from those at which the child was previously enrolled — Incorrect designation of the defendant in the application — Inadmissibility — Liability)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, admissibility, child care, indemnification








C_2018427EN.01004901.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/49






Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Constantinescu v Parliament
(Case T-17/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Education - Admission to childcare facilities - Decision to enrol a child at childcare facilities different from those at which the child was previously enrolled - Incorrect designation of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility - Liability)
(2018/C 427/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Radu Constantinescu (Kreuzweiler, Germany) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Luxembourg (OIL) enrolling the applicant’s child at the childcare facilities of the European School Luxembourg II — Bertrange/Mamer and, accordingly, refusing the child’s enrolment at the childcare facilities of the European School Luxembourg I — Kirchberg, as well as the decision of the European Parliament of 7 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, and, second, compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 70, 6.3.2017.
Case C-384/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Road transport — Tax provisions — Directive 1999/62/EC — Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures — Toll — Obligation of the Member States to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties — Flat-rate fine — Principle of proportionality — Direct applicability of the directive)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, direct applicability, fine, large vehicle, principle of proportionality, road transport, tax law, toll








C_2018436EN.01001202.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/12






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N v Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya
(Case C-384/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Road transport - Tax provisions - Directive 1999/62/EC - Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures - Toll - Obligation of the Member States to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties - Flat-rate fine - Principle of proportionality - Direct applicability of the directive))
(2018/C 436/14)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Dooel Uvoz-Izvoz Skopje Link Logistic N&N

Defendant: Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya

Operative part of the judgment

The requirement of proportionality in Article 9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011, cannot be regarded as having direct effect.
The national court must, by virtue of its duty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the implementation of that provision, interpret national law in conformity with that provision or, if such an interpretation is not possible, disapply any national provision in so far as its application would, in the circumstances of the case, lead to a result contrary to EU law.


(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Case T-615/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — PD v EIB (Civil service — Personnel of the EIB — Psychological harassment — Total and permanent disability — Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Action brought before the closure of the procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European civil service, damages, disabled person, harassment at work, occupational disease, psychological harassment








C_2018427EN.01004501.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/45






Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — PD v EIB
(Case T-615/16) (1)

(Civil service - Personnel of the EIB - Psychological harassment - Total and permanent disability - Application for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Action brought before the closure of the procedure for recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Inadmissibility)
(2018/C 427/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: PD (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, in essence, an order that the EIB compensate the applicant for the harm which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of psychological harassment at the hands of his line manager and the failure on the part of the EIB to take appropriate measures to address that situation and to protect his health.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action as being inadmissible;










2.


Orders PD and the European Investment Bank (EIB) to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-45/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-914/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Proof IT v EIGE (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Request for services that were split into two lots — Management consultancy services — Maintenance and updating of statistical tools and resources — Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer — Award criteria — Transparency — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, consultancy, damages, equal treatment, gender equality, services contract, social statistics, statistics, tendering, transparency in decision-making








C_2018427EN.01004801.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/48






Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Proof IT v EIGE
(Case T-914/16) (1)

(Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Request for services that were split into two lots - Management consultancy services - Maintenance and updating of statistical tools and resources - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Award criteria - Transparency - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
(2018/C 427/60)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Proof IT SIA (Riga, Latvia) (represented by: J. Jerņeva and D. Pāvila, lawyers)

Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (represented by: J. Stuyck, V. Ost and M.Vanderstraeten, lawyers)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of EIGE’s decision, communicated to the applicant by the letter with reference EIGE/VL/mpD/2016/594 of 14 October 2016, rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of both lots relating to invitation to tender EIGE/2016/OPER/01 entitled ‘Framework contract on maintenance and update of EIGE’s gender statistics tools and resources’ and awarding the framework contract to another tenderer and, second, under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant in respect of loss of opportunity or loss of the contract itself.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Proof IT SIA to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8977 — Lone Star/Imerys TC) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: building materials, economic concentration, investment company, merger control








C_2018398EN.01000202.xml










5.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 398/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.8977 — Lone Star/Imerys TC)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 398/04)
On 4 October 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 32018M8977. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-546/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Tataram v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Adjustment of remuneration — Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 — Salary slip — Time-limit for bringing an action — Out of time — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, pay, staff regulations (EU), wage determination








C_2018427EN.01004401.xml










26.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 427/44






Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Tataram v Commission
(Case T-546/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Adjustment of remuneration - Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 - Salary slip - Time-limit for bringing an action - Out of time - Inadmissibility)
(2018/C 427/55)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Marina Tataram (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno initially, then F. Moyse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara initially, then G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga initially, then M. Bauer and R. Meyer, Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s remuneration in respect of May 2014, as given specific expression in the salary slip for that month sent to her on 15 May 2014, which is the first salary slip to apply Regulation (EU) No 423/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2012 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2014 L 129, p. 12).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ms Marina Tataram to pay the costs.










3.


Declares that the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015 (Case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-42/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Corrigendum to Commission Notice — Handbook on how to issue and execute a European arrest warrant (OJ C 335, 6.10.2017)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: European arrest warrant, extradition, judicial cooperation, judicial inquiry, judicial investigation, mutual recognition principle, user guide








C_2018355EN.01001001.xml










4.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/10






Corrigendum to Commission Notice — Handbook on how to issue and execute a European arrest warrant
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 335 of 6 October 2017
)
(2018/C 355/06)
On page 74, Annex IV, the following text is inserted after the entry for Bulgaria:








‘Croatia



:


Croatian. In urgent cases, the Republic of Croatia will accept a translation into English on condition of reciprocity.’
Case C-45/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — Claire Staelen v European Ombudsman (Appeal — Application for revision — Conditions for admissibility)
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrator, competition (EU), indemnification, job application, professional career








C_2018436EN.01001501.xml










3.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 436/15






Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 October 2018 — Claire Staelen v European Ombudsman
(Case C-45/18 P) (1)

((Appeal - Application for revision - Conditions for admissibility))
(2018/C 436/18)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Claire Staelen (represented by: V. Olona, avocate)

Other party to the proceedings: European Ombudsman (represented by: L. Papadias and A. Antoniadis, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Ms Claire Staelen to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-10-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018355EN.01000401.xml










4.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 October 2018
(2018/C 355/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1548 




JPY


Japanese yen


131,47 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4567 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88895 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3795 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1412 




ISK


Iceland króna


130,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,4443 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,779 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,87 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2956 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6648 




TRY


Turkish lira


7,0058 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6146 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4820 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


9,0498 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7617 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5890 




KRW


South Korean won


1 293,30 




ZAR


South African rand


16,6031 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9321 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4270 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 401,61 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7809 




PHP


Philippine peso


62,677 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,7812 




THB


Thai baht


37,398 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4737 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6818 




INR


Indian rupee


84,7170 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.