do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-225/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Annulment of a listing by the General Court of the European Union — Amendment of the criteria governing inclusion on a list of persons and entities whose assets are to be frozen — Re-listing — Evidence dating from before the first listing — Facts known before the first listing — Force of res judicata — Scope — Legal certainty — Protection of legitimate expectations — Principle Non bis in idem — Effective judicial protection)
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, principle of legal certainty, right to justice








C_2019112EN.01000401.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/4






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission
(Case C-225/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Annulment of a listing by the General Court of the European Union - Amendment of the criteria governing inclusion on a list of persons and entities whose assets are to be frozen - Re-listing - Evidence dating from before the first listing - Facts known before the first listing - Force of res judicata - Scope - Legal certainty - Protection of legitimate expectations - Principle Non bis in idem - Effective judicial protection))
(2019/C 112/05)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Shipping Lines, IRISL Europe GmbH, Qeshm Marine Services & Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Marine Information Technology Development Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Hoopad Darya Shipping Agency and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. (represented by: M. Lester QC and M. Taher, Solicitor)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Kneale and M. Bishop, Agents), European Commission (represented by: D. Gauci and by T. Scharf, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, Hafize Darya Shipping Lines (HDSL), Khazar Shipping Lines, IRISL Europe GmbH, Qeshm Marine Services & Engineering Co., Irano Misr Shipping Co., Safiran Payam Darya Shipping Lines, Marine Information Technology Development Co., Rahbaran Omid Darya Ship Management Co., Hoopad Darya Shipping Agency and Valfajr 8th Shipping Line Co. to bear their 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 231, 17.7.2017.
Case C-6/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission (Appeal — European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) — European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) — Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Financing of the common agricultural policy — Excluded expenditure — Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic)
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2019112EN.01000601.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/6






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 — Hellenic Republic v European Commission
(Case C-6/18 P) (1)

((Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Financing of the common agricultural policy - Excluded expenditure - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic))
(2019/C 112/07)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Appellant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, I. Pachi and A. Vasilopoulou, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Sauka, Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.
Recommendation No 1/2019 of the EU-PLO Joint Committee of 31 January 2019 approving the extension of the EU-PA Action Plan [2019/223]
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: European Union, Joint Committee, Palestine Liberation Organisation
Subjects: Mediterranean region (EU), Palestine, Palestine Liberation Organisation, Union for the Mediterranean, action programme, association agreement (EU), cooperation agreement (EU), trade agreement, trade agreement (EU)








L_2019035EN.01003501.xml










7.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 35/35








            RECOMMENDATION No 1/2019 OF THE EU-PLO JOINT COMMITTEE
         
of 31 January 2019
         
approving the extension of the EU-PA Action Plan [2019/223]


THE EU-PLO JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (1),

Whereas:







(1)


The Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community, of the one part, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, of the other part (the ‘Interim Association Agreement’), was signed on 24 February 1997 and entered into force on 1 July 1997.












(2)


Pursuant to Article 63 of the Interim Association Agreement, the Joint Committee may take decisions and make appropriate recommendations.












(3)


Article 10 of the Rules of Procedures of the Joint Committee provides for the possibility of taking decisions by written procedure between sessions if both Parties so agree.












(4)


The extension of the EU-PA Action Plan for three years will give the Parties the opportunity to take forward their cooperation for the coming years, including through the possible negotiation of partnership priorities,





HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:



Article 1
The Joint Committee, acting by written procedure, recommends that the EU-PA Action Plan be extended for three years as of the date of the adoption of the extension.


Article 2
This Recommendation shall take effect on the date of its adoption.




Done at Brussels, 31 January 2019.


For the EU-PLO Joint Committee


The President

Kherieh RASSAS
            





(1)  
            OJ L 187, 16.7.1997, p. 3.
Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Norway, Switzerland, Türkiye, agreement (EU), generalised preferences, originating product, tariff agreement, tariff preference








L_2019027EN.01000101.xml










31.1.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 27/1







Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences

The Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the European Union and the Swiss Confederation on the cumulation of origin between the European Union, the Swiss Confederation, the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of Turkey in the framework of the Generalised System of Preferences will enter into force on 1 February 2019 in accordance with point 18 of the Agreement.
Case T-60/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cheese, foodstuff, processed foodstuff, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019112EN.01004402.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/44






Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
(Case T-60/19)
(2019/C 112/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, QC, V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Filotas Bellas & Yios AE (Alexandreia Imathias, Greece)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark Halloumi χαλλούμι Vermion grill cheese/grill est/grill kase M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927 — European Union trade mark No 12 172 276

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 November 2018 in Case R 2296/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and intervener to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


The Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the goods;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in considering that it was correct to transpose the reasoning from previous General Court case law;










—


The Board of Appeal wrongly held that an earlier national mark wholly lacked distinctive character as distinguishing goods which are certified from those which were not;










—


The Board of Appeal erred in the comparison of the marks and the assessment of the likelihood of confusion;










—


The Board of Appeal failed to consider national provisions and case law as to the scope and effect of national certification marks.
Case C-78/19 P: Appeal brought on 31 January 2019 by WL against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 29 November 2018 in Case T-493/17, WL v ERCEA
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, contract staff, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, image, indemnification, probationary period, remuneration of work, servant (EU)








C_2019288EN.01001102.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/11






Appeal brought on 31 January 2019 by WL against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Ninth Chamber) on 29 November 2018 in Case T-493/17, WL v ERCEA
(Case C-78/19 P)
(2019/C 288/14)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Appellant: WL (represented by: F. Elia, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA)
By order of 11 July 2019, the Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded, and ordered WL to bear its own costs.
Case C-701/18: Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Geld-für-Flug GmbH v Ryanair DAC
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, consumer protection, contract of carriage, establishment, private international law, unfair terms of contract








C_2019172EN.01002603.xml










20.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 172/26






Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg — Germany) — Geld-für-Flug GmbH v Ryanair DAC
(Case C-701/18) (1)

(2019/C 172/37)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Case T-56/17: Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO and Others v SEAE
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, education grant, equal treatment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019103EN.01005901.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/59






Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO and Others v SEAE
(Case T-56/17) (1)

(2019/C 103/75)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.
Case C-149/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Law applicable to non-contractual obligations — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II) — Articles 16 and 27 — Overriding mandatory provisions — Directive 2009/103/EC — Civil liability insurance for motor vehicles — Article 28)
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: damages, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, limitation of legal proceedings, motor vehicle insurance, private international law, third-party insurance








C_2019112EN.01000602.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/6






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 31 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa — Portugal) — Agostinho da Silva Martins v Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA
(Case C-149/18) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Law applicable to non-contractual obligations - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II) - Articles 16 and 27 - Overriding mandatory provisions - Directive 2009/103/EC - Civil liability insurance for motor vehicles - Article 28))
(2019/C 112/08)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Agostinho da Silva Martins

Respondent: Dekra Claims Services Portugal SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the limitation period for actions seeking compensation for damage resulting from an accident is three years, cannot be considered to be an overriding mandatory provision, within the meaning of that article, unless the court hearing the case finds, on the basis of a detailed analysis of the wording, general scheme, objectives and the context in which that provision was adopted, that it is of such importance in the national legal order that it justifies a departure from the law applicable, designated pursuant to Article 4 of that regulation.










2.


Article 27 of Regulation No 864/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 28 of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, as transposed into national law, does not constitute a provision of EU law which lays down a conflict-of-law rule relating to non-contractual obligations, within the meaning of Article 27 of that regulation.






(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Case C-73/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 31 January 2019 — Belgische Staat, vertegenwoordigd door de Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met Buitenlandse handel, Belgische Staat, vertegenwoordigd door de Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie v Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, civil law, commercial law, consumer protection, electronic commerce, firm governed by commercial law, government, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction








C_2019139EN.01003602.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/36






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 31 January 2019 — Belgische Staat, vertegenwoordigd door de Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met Buitenlandse handel, Belgische Staat, vertegenwoordigd door de Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie v Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV
(Case C-73/19)
(2019/C 139/35)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Belgische Staat, vertegenwoordigd door de Minister van Werk, Economie en Consumenten, belast met Buitenlandse handel, Belgische Staat, vertegenwoordigd door de Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie, Directeur-Generaal van de Algemene Directie Economische Inspectie

Respondents: Movic BV, Events Belgium BV, Leisure Tickets & Activities International BV

Question referred

Is an action concerning a claim aimed at determining and stopping infringing market practices and/or commercial practices towards consumers, instituted by the Belgian Government in respect of Dutch companies which from the Netherlands, via websites, focus on a mainly Belgian clientele for the resale of tickets for events taking place in Belgium, pursuant to Article 14 of the wet van 30 juli 2013 betreffende de verkoop van toegangsbewijzen tot evenementen (Law of 30 July 2013 regarding the sale of admission tickets to events) and pursuant to Article XVII.7 WER, a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the European Regulation 1215/2012 (1) of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and can a judicial decision in such a case, for that reason, fall within the scope of that Regulation?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).
Case T-63/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Rot Front v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (РОШЕН)
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, confectionery product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019122EN.01002101.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/21






Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Rot Front v EUIPO — Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (РОШЕН)
(Case T-63/19)
(2019/C 122/24)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rot Front OAO (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: M. Geitz and J. Stock, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (Kiev, Ukraine)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark РОШЕН — International registration designating the European Union No 11 233 784

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 November 2018 in Case R 1872/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 94(1), 47(5) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-58/19: Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Othman v Council
Date: 2019-01-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, natural person, ownership








C_2019139EN.01006201.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/62






Action brought on 31 January 2019 — Othman v Council
(Case T-58/19)
(2019/C 139/65)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Razan Othman (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the applicant’s application admissible and well-founded;










—


as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;










—


order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one main plea and one alternative plea, alleging the harm that she has allegedly suffered and for which the Council of the European Union is liable.
The main plea alleges that the restrictive measures at issue, namely Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria and its subsequent implementing acts, are unlawful. First, they infringe the obligation to state reasons as laid down in Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, second, they infringe the applicant’s right to property and the right to respect for her reputation. That infringement was the direct cause of significant material and non-material damage to her, consisting respectively of damage to her reputation, on the one hand, and breach of contracts, loss of material and loss of income, on the other, for which she claims to be entitled to compensation.
The alternative plea is based on the existence of a strict liability regime in the European Union.