do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-447/17: Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Bowles v ECB (Civil Service — ECB Staff — Appointment decision concerning the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board — No act adversely affecting the applicant — No interest in bringing proceedings — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: appointment of members, consultancy, damages, equal treatment, indemnification, job application, job description, president of an institution, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019065EN.01003601.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/36






Order of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Bowles v ECB
(Case T-447/17) (1)

((Civil Service - ECB Staff - Appointment decision concerning the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board - No act adversely affecting the applicant - No interest in bringing proceedings - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
(2019/C 65/45)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Carlos Bowles (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: B. Ehlers and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, the annulment (i) of the decision of the Executive Board of the ECB of 31 January 2017 to appoint M.S. to the post of Adviser to the President and Coordinator of the Counsel to the Executive Board (ii) of the decision not to appoint the applicant to that post and (iii) of the decision not to allow the applicant to apply for that post and, secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.










2.


Mr Carlos Bowles shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Case T-559/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Post Bank Iran v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures — Non-material damage)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, damages, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, trade restriction








C_2019082EN.01003601.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/36






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Post Bank Iran v Council
(Case T-559/15) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Inclusion and maintenance of the applicant’s name on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures - Non-material damage))
(2019/C 82/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Post Bank Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Tricot, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), by which the applicant’s name was included and maintained on the lists of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Post Bank Iran 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 27, 25.1.2016.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2018449EN.01001001.xml










13.12.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 449/10






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 December 2018
(2018/C 449/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1346 




JPY


Japanese yen


128,67 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4641 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,90135 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3595 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1286 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7265 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,866 




HUF


Hungarian forint


323,43 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2986 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6571 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0893 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5732 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5170 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8693 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6573 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5577 




KRW


South Korean won


1 280,62 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1475 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8155 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3895 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 562,32 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7538 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,714 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,2467 




THB


Thai baht


37,192 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3881 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,7639 




INR


Indian rupee


81,6900 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-591/15: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Transavia Airlines v Commission (State aid — Airport and marketing services agreement — Agreement between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Transavia — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Concept of State aid — Whether attributable to the State — Chamber of Commerce and Industry — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Right of access to the file — Right to be heard)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, access to EU information, airport, control of State aid, financial aid, low cost airline, profitability, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019082EN.01003701.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/37






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Transavia Airlines v Commission
(Case T-591/15) (1)

((State aid - Airport and marketing services agreement - Agreement between the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn and Transavia - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Concept of State aid - Whether attributable to the State - Chamber of Commerce and Industry - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Right of access to the file - Right to be heard))
(2019/C 82/41)
Language of the case: Dutch

Parties


Applicant: Transavia Airlines CV (Schiphol, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Elkerbout and M. Baneke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1227 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.22614 (C 53/07) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Pau-Béarn, Ryanair, Airport Marketing Services and Transavia (OJ 2015 L 201, p. 109).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Transavia Airlines CV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.






(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.
Case T-689/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Pipiliagkas v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Assignment — Decision with retroactive effect — Article 22a of the Staff Regulations — Authority lacking competence — Liability — Compensation in respect of material and non-material harm)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, damages, indemnification, reassignment, retroactivity of a law, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019082EN.01004702.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/47






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Pipiliagkas v Commission
(Case T-689/16) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Assignment - Decision with retroactive effect - Article 22a of the Staff Regulations - Authority lacking competence - Liability - Compensation in respect of material and non-material harm))
(2019/C 82/54)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Nikolaos Pipiliagkas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny and subsequently by J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara and subsequently by G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 22 December 2015 of the Head of Unit ‘Career and performance management’ of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, concerning the reassignment of the applicant with retroactive effect, and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material harm which he claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls the decision of 22 December 2015 of the Head of Unit ‘Career and performance management’ of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security, concerning the reassignment of Mr Nikolaos Pipiliagkas with effect from 1 January 2013;










2.


Dismisses the action as to the remainder;










3.


Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and half of the costs of Mr Pipiliagkas;










4.


Orders Mr Pipiliagkas to bear half of his own costs.






(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.
Case C-298/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — France Télévisions SA v Playmédia, Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications networks and services — Universal service and users’ rights — Undertaking providing an electronic communications network used for the distribution of radio or television broadcasts to the public — Undertaking offering the live streaming of television programmes online — ‘Must carry’ obligation)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, broadcasting, freedom to provide services, postal and telecommunications services, regulation of telecommunications, television, transmission network, universal service








C_2019065EN.01000701.xml










18.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 65/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — France Télévisions SA v Playmédia, Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA)
(Case C-298/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications networks and services - Universal service and users’ rights - Undertaking providing an electronic communications network used for the distribution of radio or television broadcasts to the public - Undertaking offering the live streaming of television programmes online - ‘Must carry’ obligation))
(2019/C 65/07)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: France Télévisions SA

Defendants: Playmédia, Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel (CSA)

Intervener: Ministry of Culture and Communication

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 31(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking which offers the live streaming of television programmes online must not, based on that fact alone, be regarded as an undertaking which provides an electronic communications network used for the distribution of radio or television channels to the public.










2.


The provisions of Directive 2002/22, as amended by Directive 2009/136, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, a ‘must carry’ obligation on undertakings which, without providing electronic communication networks, offer the live streaming of television programmes online.






(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.
Case T-165/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission (State aid — Agreements concluded with the airline Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services — Airport services — Marketing services — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Notion of State aid — Advantage — Private investor test — Recovery — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Access to the file — Right to be heard)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, access to EU information, airport, control of State aid, financial aid, low cost airline, profitability, reimbursement of aid, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019082EN.01004101.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/41






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services v Commission
(Case T-165/16) (1)

((State aid - Agreements concluded with the airline Ryanair and its subsidiary Airport Marketing Services - Airport services - Marketing services - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Notion of State aid - Advantage - Private investor test - Recovery - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Access to the file - Right to be heard))
(2019/C 82/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I.-G. Metaxas-Maranghidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, L. Armati, and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the partial annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/287 of 15 October 2014 on State aid SA.26500 — 2012/C (ex 2011/NN, ex CP 227/2008) implemented by Germany for Flugplatz Altenburg-Nobitz GmbH and Ryanair Ltd (OJ 2016 L 59, p. 22).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ryanair DAC and Airport Marketing Services Ltd to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;










3.


Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Case T-591/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 –Wahlström v Frontex (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Frontex — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract — Article 8 of the CEOS — Duty of care — Use of an annulled appraisal report — Manifest error of assessment — Liability — Costs — Equity — Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: damages, equal treatment, servant (EU), staff assessment, staff regulations (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2019082EN.01004501.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/45






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 –Wahlström v Frontex
(Case T-591/16) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Frontex - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract - Article 8 of the CEOS - Duty of care - Use of an annulled appraisal report - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Costs - Equity - Article 135(1) of the Rules of Procedure))
(2019/C 82/51)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Kari Wahlström (Espoo (Finland)) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) (represented by: H. Caniard and S. Drew, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 26 June 2015 not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff of Frontex and, secondly, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the loss of salary consequent thereon and the loss of corresponding pension rights.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-21/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-274/17: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MONSTER DIP — Earlier EU word and figurative marks and unregistered sign used in the course of trade, all including the word element ‘monster’ — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — No likelihood of misleading association — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) — No likelihood of dilution of the reputation of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, metal coating, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019082EN.01005002.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/50






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Bösel (MONSTER DIP)
(Case T-274/17) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MONSTER DIP - Earlier EU word and figurative marks and unregistered sign used in the course of trade, all including the word element ‘monster’ - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - No likelihood of misleading association - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - No likelihood of dilution of the reputation of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))
(2019/C 82/58)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Marco Bösel (Bad Fallingbostel, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2016 (Case R 1062/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Marco Bösel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 221, 10.7.2017.
Case T-94/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (fit+fun) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark fit+fun — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2018-12-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, dietary product, domestic animal, food supplement, pet food, registered trade mark, textile product, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2019082EN.01005502.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/55






Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (fit+fun)
(Case T-94/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark fit+fun - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 82/66)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, D. Walicka, M. Eberl and A. Sesma Merino, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2017 (Case R 847/2017-1) concerning the registration of the word mark fit+fun as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.