do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-600/17: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Roma — Italy) — Pina Cipollone v Ministero della Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Fixed-term work — Magistrates — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: judge, temporary employment, working conditions








C_2019112EN.01000701.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/7






Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Roma — Italy) — Pina Cipollone v Ministero della Giustizia
(Case C-600/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Fixed-term work - Magistrates - Manifest inadmissibility))
(2019/C 112/09)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Pina Cipollone

Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

Other party to the proceedings: Unione Nazionale Giudici di Pace (Unagipa)

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Giudice di pace di Roma (Justice of the Peace, Rome, Italy) by decision of 25 August 2017 is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Case C-31/19 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2019 by Seven SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2018 in Case T-339/17: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, optical industry, photographic industry, radio equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019280EN.01001502.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/15






Appeal brought on 17 January 2019 by Seven SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 21 November 2018 in Case T-339/17: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial v EUIPO — Seven
(Case C-31/19 P)
(2019/C 280/20)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Seven SpA (represented by: L. Trevisan, avvocato)

Other parties to the proceedings: Shenzhen Jiayz Photo Industrial Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office
By order of 2 July 2019 the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case C-639/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ v SIA ‘Ķipars AI’ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems — Directive 98/26/EC — Scope — Concept of ‘transfer order’ — Payment order sent by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution subsequently declared insolvent)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank deposit, credit institution, electronic banking, financial solvency, payment system








C_2019093EN.01001501.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/15






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’ v SIA ‘Ķipars AI’
(Case C-639/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems - Directive 98/26/EC - Scope - Concept of ‘transfer order’ - Payment order sent by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution subsequently declared insolvent))
(2019/C 93/19)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Augstākā tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SIA ‘KPMG Baltics’, acting as insolvency administrator of AS ‘Latvijas Krājbanka’

Respondent: SIA ‘Ķipars AI’

Operative part of the judgment

A payment order, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, given by the holder of an ordinary current account to a credit institution for a transfer of funds to another credit institution is not covered by the concept of ‘transfer order’, within the meaning of Directive 98/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems, as amended by Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009, and does not, therefore, come within the scope of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Case C-102/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 — Article 65(2) — European Certificate of Succession — Application for a certificate — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 — Mandatory or optional nature of the form established by Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: form, inheritance, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, law of succession, official document








C_2019093EN.01001801.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/18






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — Proceedings brought by Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch
(Case C-102/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 65(2) - European Certificate of Succession - Application for a certificate - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 - Mandatory or optional nature of the form established by Article 1(4) of Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014))
(2019/C 93/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Klaus Manuel Maria Brisch

Operative part of the judgment

Article 65(2) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession and Article 1(4) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 of 9 December 2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of an application for a European Certificate of Succession, within the meaning of Article 65(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, the use of Form IV in Annex 4 to Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014 is optional.


(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Case T-117/17: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Proximus v Council (Public service contracts — Negotiated procedure — Most economically advantageous tender — Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer — Discretion of a contracting authority — Lawfulness of the evaluation method — Principle of sound financial management)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: award of contract, financial management, information security, legality, public procurement, services contract, tendering








C_2019103EN.01002401.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/24






Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Proximus v Council
(Case T-117/17) (1)

((Public service contracts - Negotiated procedure - Most economically advantageous tender - Rejection of the tender submitted by a tenderer - Discretion of a contracting authority - Lawfulness of the evaluation method - Principle of sound financial management))
(2019/C 103/30)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Proximus SA/NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Schutyser, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Jaume and S. Cholakova, acting as Agents, and by P. de Bandt, P. Teerlinck and M. Gherghinaru, lawyers)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the Council of 23 December 2016 to award the framework contract for the provision of cybersecurity services [confidential], to another tenderer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action.










2.


Orders Proximus SA/NV to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim measures.






(1)  OJ C 151, 15.5.2017.
Case T-40/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (SOLIDPOWER) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark SOLIDPOWER — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chemical product, household electrical appliance, maintenance, measuring equipment, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01005901.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/59






Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Ecolab USA v EUIPO (SOLIDPOWER)
(Case T-40/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark SOLIDPOWER - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 93/76)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Ecolab USA, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: V. Töbelmann, K. Middelhoff, and C. Saatkamp, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 November 2017 (Case R 1182/2017-5), relating to the international registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark SOLIDPOWER.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Ecolab USA, Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019021EN.01000601.xml










17.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 21/6






Euro exchange rates (1)

16 January 2019
(2019/C 21/07)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1389 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,91 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4642 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88590 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,2488 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1269 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7358 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,564 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,58 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2877 




RON


Romanian leu


4,6850 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1166 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5874 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5101 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9338 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6817 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5439 




KRW


South Korean won


1 278,36 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6086 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7018 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4268 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 115,87 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6803 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,468 




RUB


Russian rouble


75,9175 




THB


Thai baht


36,115 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2271 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6380 




INR


Indian rupee


81,0055 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-91/18: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Equity Cheque Capital Corporation v EUIPO (DIAMOND CARD) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark DIAMOND CARD — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, financial services, insurance, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019093EN.01006001.xml










11.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/60






Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2019 — Equity Cheque Capital Corporation v EUIPO (DIAMOND CARD)
(Case T-91/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark DIAMOND CARD - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 93/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Equity Cheque Capital Corporation (Victoria, Canada) (represented by: I. Berkeley, Barrister, P. Wheeler and C. Rani, Solicitors)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2017 (Case R 1544/2017-4), relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign DIAMOND CARD as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Equity Cheque Capital Corporation to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 134, 16.4.2018.
Case T-32/19: Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Harrington Padrón v Council
Date: 2019-01-17
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Venezuela, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, public prosecutor's department








C_2019103EN.01005002.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/50






Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Harrington Padrón v Council
(Case T-32/19)
(2019/C 103/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Katherine Nayarith Harrington Padrón (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018, (2) insofar 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 a single plea in law alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that her name should be maintained on the lists set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 (3) and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017, (4) notwithstanding the fact that she is no longer Deputy Prosecutor General and is not related to the Venezuelan governing authorities.


(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 10).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21).