do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-9/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU work mark STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, financial services, insurance, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, teaching materials, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01004502.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/45






Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Addiko Bank v EUIPO (STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING)
(Case T-9/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU work mark STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 44/57)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Addiko Bank AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Seling, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 October 2017 (Case R 1090/2017-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign STRAIGHTFORWARD BANKING as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Addiko Bank AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Case C-679/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Restrictions — Tax legislation — Inheritance tax — Sustainably managed woodland — Exemption — Protection of wooded areas)
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital transfer tax, forest, free movement of capital, sustainable forest management, tax exemption, tax law, wooded area








C_2019025EN.01001301.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/13






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw v Johannes Huijbrechts
(Case C-679/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Restrictions - Tax legislation - Inheritance tax - Sustainably managed woodland - Exemption - Protection of wooded areas))
(2019/C 25/15)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Begroting, Financiën en Energie, Vlaams Gewest, represented by the Vlaamse regering in the person of the Vlaamse Minister van Omgeving, Natuur en Landbouw

Defendant: Johannes Huijbrechts

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which grants a tax advantage for inherited woodland on condition that it is the subject of sustainable management as defined by national law, but restricts that advantage to woodland situated in the territory of that Member State.


(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Case T-59/18: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark FEMIVIA — Earlier EU word mark FEMIBION INTIMA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019044EN.01004601.xml










4.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 44/46






Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Endoceutics v EUIPO — Merck (FEMIVIA)
(Case T-59/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark FEMIVIA - Earlier EU word mark FEMIBION INTIMA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 44/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Endoceutics, Inc. (Quebec, Canada) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 November 2017 (Case R 280/2017-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Merck and Endoceutics.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Endoceutics, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Case C-625/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG v Finanzamt Feldkirch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 56 and 63 TFEU — Freedom to provide services and free movement of capital — Credit institutions — Stability charge and the special contribution for that charge determined according to the unconsolidated balance sheet total of credit institutions established in Austria — Inclusion of cross-border banking transactions — Exclusion of subsidiaries’ transactions in another Member State — Difference in treatment — Restriction — Justification)
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, bank charges, credit institution, establishment, free movement of capital, freedom to provide services, group of companies, single market








C_2019025EN.01001101.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/11






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG v Finanzamt Feldkirch
(Case C-625/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 56 and 63 TFEU - Freedom to provide services and free movement of capital - Credit institutions - Stability charge and the special contribution for that charge determined according to the unconsolidated balance sheet total of credit institutions established in Austria - Inclusion of cross-border banking transactions - Exclusion of subsidiaries’ transactions in another Member State - Difference in treatment - Restriction - Justification))
(2019/C 25/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Defendant: Finanzamt Feldkirch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it imposes on credit institutions established in Austria, such as the credit institution at issue in the main proceedings, which do not supply services to their clients resident in other Member States through permanent credit institutions established in those Member States, a charge determined according to the ‘average unconsolidated balance sheet total’, which includes the banking transactions which those institutions enter into directly with nationals of other Member States, whilst excluding the same transactions entered into by subsidiaries of credit institutions established in Austria where those subsidiaries are established in other Member States.


(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Case T-690/18: Action brought on 22 November 2018 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, computer equipment, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019035EN.01002501.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/25






Action brought on 22 November 2018 — Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe v EUIPO — Vieta Audio (Vita)
(Case T-690/18)
(2019/C 35/31)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Sony Interactive Entertainment Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vieta Audio, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark Vita — European Union trade mark No 9 993 361

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 September 2018 in Case R 695/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and the other party to pay their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Amendments to the Customs Convention on the International Transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention 1975)
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine*, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Türkiye, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan
Subjects: carriage of goods, customs regulations, international convention, international road transport, revision of an agreement, transport document




L_2018296EN.01000101.xml










22.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 296/1







Amendments to the Customs Convention on the International Transport of goods under cover of TIR carnets (TIR Convention 1975)


According to UN Depositary Notification C.N.557.2018.TREATIES — XI.A.16 the following amendments to the TIR Convention enter into force on 3 February 2019 for all Contracting Parties







 


Article 1, paragraph (q)
After ‘customs authorities’ add ‘or other competent authorities’.










 


Article 3, paragraph (b)
For ‘approved’ read ‘authorized’.










 


Article 6, paragraph 2
For ‘approved’ read ‘authorized’.










 


Article 11, paragraph 3
For ‘three months’ read ‘one month’.










 


Article 38, paragraph 1
For the existing text read:


‘1.   Each of the Contracting Parties shall have the right to exclude temporarily or permanently from the operation of this Convention any person guilty of a serious or repeated offence against the customs laws or regulations applicable to the international transport of goods. The conditions in which the offence against the customs laws or regulations is considered to be serious shall be decided by the Contracting Party.’
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018422EN.01000501.xml










22.11.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 422/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

21 November 2018
(2018/C 422/04)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1409 




JPY


Japanese yen


129,04 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4617 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89108 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3143 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1341 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7290 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


26,002 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,63 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2995 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6632 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0888 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5725 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5144 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9361 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6686 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5663 




KRW


South Korean won


1 287,06 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9020 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,9121 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4318 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 655,14 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7735 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,593 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,0963 




THB


Thai baht


37,593 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3262 




MXN


Mexican peso


23,1180 




INR


Indian rupee


81,3520 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-726/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana (Italy) lodged on 22 November 2018 — FW, GY v U.T.G. — Prefettura di Lucca
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: asylum seeker, offence, right of asylum, social facilities








C_2019093EN.01002501.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana (Italy) lodged on 22 November 2018 — FW, GY v U.T.G. — Prefettura di Lucca
(Case C-726/18)
(2019/C 93/34)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: FW, GY

Defendant: U.T.G. — Prefettura di Lucca

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU (1) preclude an interpretation of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 as meaning that conduct that infringes general rules of national law, not specifically reproduced in reception centre rules, may also constitute a serious breach of those rules if it potentially disrupts life within the reception centres?
In the event of an affirmative answer, the following further question is referred to, and requires an answer by, the Court:










2.


Does Article 20(4) of Directive 2013/33/EU preclude an interpretation of Article 23 of Legislative Decree No 142/2015 as meaning that conduct on the part of the applicant for international protection that does not constitute a criminal offence punishable under the laws of the Member State may also be taken into consideration for the purpose of withdrawing reception measures, if that conduct might nevertheless potentially disrupt life within the centre in which the persons concerned are placed?






(1)  Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 96).
Case C-575/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Sofina SA, Rebelco SA, Sidro SA v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of capital — Withholding tax on the gross amount of nationally sourced dividends paid to non-resident companies — Deferral of taxation of dividends paid to a resident company in the event of a loss-making year — Difference in treatment — Justification — Comparability — Balanced distribution of the powers of taxation between the Member States — Effective collection of tax — Proportionality — Discrimination)
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: capital gains tax, cash flow, equal treatment, establishment, free movement of capital, tax collection, tax inspection








C_2019025EN.01001001.xml










21.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 25/10






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 November 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Sofina SA, Rebelco SA, Sidro SA v Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics
(Case C-575/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of capital - Withholding tax on the gross amount of nationally sourced dividends paid to non-resident companies - Deferral of taxation of dividends paid to a resident company in the event of a loss-making year - Difference in treatment - Justification - Comparability - Balanced distribution of the powers of taxation between the Member States - Effective collection of tax - Proportionality - Discrimination))
(2019/C 25/11)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Sofina SA, Rebelco SA, Sidro SA

Defendant: Ministre de l’Action et des Comptes publics

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 63 and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the dividends paid by a resident company are subject to a withholding tax when they are received by a non-resident company, whereas, when such dividends are received by a resident company, under the general corporation tax rules they are subject to taxation at the end of the financial year in which they were received only if the latter company was profitable in that financial year, and such taxation may, where applicable, never be levied if that company ceases trading without becoming profitable after receiving those dividends.


(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Case T-424/17: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark FRUIT — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Res judicata — Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019035EN.01002201.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/22






Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Fruit of the Loom v EUIPO — Takko (FRUIT)
(Case T-424/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark FRUIT - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 18(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Res judicata - Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 72(6) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 35/27)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, Kentucky, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 (Case R 2119/2016-4), relating to revocation proceedings between Takko Holding and Fruit of the Loom.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Fruit of the Loom, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 318, 25.9.2017.
Case T-508/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Lithuania v Commission (EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure by Lithuania — Aid for early retirement — Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 — Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 — Concept of carrying out a commercial farming activity — Connection with the concept of semi-subsistence farming)
Date: 2018-11-22
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, EAGGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, commercial farming, early retirement, subsistence farming








C_2019035EN.01001801.xml










28.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 35/18






Judgment of the General Court of 22 November 2018 — Lithuania v Commission
(Case T-508/15) (1)

((EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure by Lithuania - Aid for early retirement - Article 11(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 - Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 - Concept of carrying out a commercial farming activity - Connection with the concept of semi-subsistence farming))
(2019/C 35/21)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, M. Palionis, T. Lozoraitis, R. Krasuckaitė and A. Petrauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Aquilina and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39), in that that decision imposed on the Republic of Lithuania a flat-rate financial correction of 5 %, thereby excluding the sum of EUR 1 938 300,08 from financing under the ‘Early retirement’ measure during the period from 16 October 2010 to 15 October 2013.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Republic of Lithuania to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.