do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-676/18: Action brought on 30 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
Date: 2018-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: foreign national, national implementing measure, sanction (EU), seasonal worker








C_2019016EN.01003002.xml










14.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 16/30






Action brought on 30 October 2018 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
(Case C-676/18)
(2019/C 16/38)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, C. Cattabriga and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to adopt, by 30 September 2016, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions to comply with Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014, (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such laws, regulations and provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28(1) of that directive;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 per day into an account to be notified by the Commission from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case for failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/36/EU;










—


order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Member States were required, under Article 28(1) of Directive 2014/36/EU, to take the national measures necessary to transpose the obligations of that directive by 30 September 2016. In the absence of notification of any measures transposing the directive by Belgium, the Commission has decided to bring an action before the Court of Justice.
In its application, the Commission proposes that a daily periodic penalty payment of EUR 49 906,50 be imposed on Belgium. The amount of the penalty payment has been calculated by taking into account the seriousness and length of the infringement, as well as the dissuasive effect on the basis of that Member State’s ability to pay.


(1)  Directive 2014/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals for the purpose of employment as seasonal workers (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 375).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-10-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018394EN.01000201.xml










30.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 394/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

29 October 2018
(2018/C 394/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1381 




JPY


Japanese yen


127,92 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4614 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88788 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3910 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1384 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5130 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,849 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,40 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3182 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6647 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3105 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6061 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4917 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9270 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7401 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5737 




KRW


South Korean won


1 297,35 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4761 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9195 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4316 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


17 320,74 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7538 




PHP


Philippine peso


61,101 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,6394 




THB


Thai baht


37,796 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,1231 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,3632 




INR


Indian rupee


83,5595 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-673/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 October 2018 — Santen SAS v Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle
Date: 2018-10-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, market approval, medicinal product, patent, therapeutics, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019025EN.01002401.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 October 2018 — Santen SAS v Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle
(Case C-673/18)
(2019/C 25/30)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d’appel de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Santen SAS

Defendant: Directeur général de l’Institut national de la propriété industrielle

Questions referred







1.


Must the concept of a ‘different application’ within the meaning of the judgment of 19 July 2012, Neurim (C-130/11, EU:C:2012:489), be interpreted strictly, that is to say:






—


as limited only to the situation where an application for human use follows a veterinary application;










—


or as relating to an indication within a new therapeutic scope, in the sense of a new proprietary medical product, compared with the earlier marketing authorisation, or a medicinal product in which the active ingredient acts differently from how it acts in the medicinal product to which the first marketing authorisation related;










—


or more generally, in the light of the objectives of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 (1) of establishing a balanced system taking into account all the interests at stake, including those of public health, must the concept of a ‘new therapeutic use’ be assessed according to stricter criteria than those for assessing the patentability of the invention;




or must it on the other hand be interpreted broadly, that is to say, as including not only different therapeutic indications and diseases, but also different formulations, posologies and/or means of administration?










2.


Does the expression ‘[application] within the limits of the protection conferred by the basic patent’ within the meaning of the judgment [of the Court of Justice] of 19 July 2012, Neurim (C-130/11, [EU:C:2012:489]), mean that the scope of the basic patent must be the same as that of the marketing authorisation relied upon and, therefore, be limited to the new medical use corresponding to the therapeutic indication of that marketing authorisation?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1).
Case T-655/18: Action brought on 30 October 2018 — Aupicon and Others v EEAS
Date: 2018-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, living conditions, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019025EN.01004501.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/45






Action brought on 30 October 2018 — Aupicon and Others v EEAS
(Case T-655/18)
(2019/C 25/58)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Delphine Aupicon (Gaborone, Botswana) and ten other applicants (represented by: N. de Montigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Decision ADMIN(2017)26 of the Director General of Budget and Administration of the European External Action Service of 19 December 2017 on the determination of the countries in which living conditions can be deemed equivalent to those of the European Union, which do not give rise to the right to an allowance for living conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — financial year 2018;










—


so far as necessary, annul the applicants’ pay slip for January 2018;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the third paragraph of Article 1 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, on the ground that the EEAS did not adopt any general implementing provisions in accordance with Article 110 of the Staff Regulations.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging (i) manifest errors of assessment committed by the EEAS in its analysis of the criteria which must be taken into account when calculating the allowance for living conditions and (ii) failure to state relevant reasons.
Initiation of proceedings (Case M.8713 — Tata Steel/thyssenkrupp/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2018-10-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural equipment, economic concentration, flat product, iron and steel industry, merger control, metallurgical industry, mining industry








C_2018401EN.01000102.xml










7.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 401/1






Initiation of proceedings
(Case M.8713 — Tata Steel/thyssenkrupp/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2018/C 401/02)
On 30 October 2018, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration, and is without prejudice to the final decision on the case. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.
In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (+32 22964301), by email to COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu or by post, under reference M.8713 — Tata Steel/thyssenkrupp/JV, to the following address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-652/18: Action brought on 30 October 2018 — Porus v EUIPO (oral Dialysis)
Date: 2018-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, food supplement, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019004EN.01003902.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/39






Action brought on 30 October 2018 — Porus v EUIPO (oral Dialysis)
(Case T-652/18)
(2019/C 4/52)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Porus GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: C. Weil, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘oral Dialysis’ — Application for registration No 16 774 259

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 September 2018 in Case R 1375/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


uphold the application;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-659/18: Action brought on 30 October 2018 — ZS v BEI
Date: 2018-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: absenteeism, damages, rest period, termination of employment








C_2019004EN.01004101.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/41






Action brought on 30 October 2018 — ZS v BEI
(Case T-659/18)
(2019/C 4/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: ZS (represented by: B. Maréchal, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decisions of the EIB of 27 September 2017 and 28 December 2017;










—


order a total compensation of the loss suffered by the applicant.










—


in this respect, the applicant requests that EIB be ordered to pay him:






—


EUR 30 000 as unpaid salary for 42 days of annual leave and 40,5 days in the TSA-A, amounting to a total of 82,5 leave entitlements;










—


EUR 30 000 illegally deducted from the sums upon his departure;










—


EUR 50 000 as 3 % contribution of the annual salary into the OSPS (RCVP) until the normal age of retirement;










—


EUR 35 000 as the applicant’s bonus entitlement;










—


EUR 15 000 as damages in relation to the moral prejudice suffered by the applicant;










—


his legal fees for the proceedings amounting to a provisional amount of EUR 15 000;










—


the costs of proceedings and all the costs.









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 applicant’s absences were not unjustified and that in any case, the EIB should have reacted earlier given the five years period of absences. Such allegations ignore the oral agreement between the applicant and the defendant as to the filling of time-management sheets. Furthermore, there is no legal ground for the employer to proceed with a set-off or deduction of the alleged unjustified absences, with regard to the applicant’s leave entitlements or the sums due to him upon departure.












2.


Second plea in law, alleging several faults towards the applicant by the defendant characterised as illegal administrative acts, such as the grievances of unjustified absences, the loss of 82,5 leave entitlements without any legal ground where no set-off or deduction is authorised, the illegal deduction of so-called unjustified absences in the sums due upon departure that do not include the OSPS (RCVP), which directly caused him to suffer loss and an additional moral prejudice.
Case T-651/18: Action brought on 30 October 2018 — Balani Balani and Others v EUIPO — Play Hawkers (HAWKERS)
Date: 2018-10-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019004EN.01003901.xml










7.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 4/39






Action brought on 30 October 2018 — Balani Balani and Others v EUIPO — Play Hawkers (HAWKERS)
(Case T-651/18)
(2019/C 4/51)
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Sonu Gangaram Balani Balani, Anup Suresh Balani Shivdasani and Amrit Suresh Balani Shivdasani (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: A. Díaz Marrero, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Play Hawkers, SL (Elche, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark HAWKERS — Application for registration No 15 746 209

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 August 2018 in Case R 396/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision and give judgment declaring that the trade mark applied for, under No 15 746 209, and which was granted in part, is also granted for the rest of the goods applied for: Watches; Chronometers (watches); Sports watches; Jewellery; Imitation jewellery; Jewellery, including imitation jewellery and costume jewellery; Clocks and watches; Horological goods; Cases for clocks and watches;










—


Order the defendant to pay the costs.





Plea in law

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.