do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-86/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 9 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2019 — SL v Vueling Airlines S.A.
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, carrier, damages, indemnification, international convention, international transport, passenger rights, personal effects, traveller








C_2019164EN.01001901.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 9 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 6 February 2019 — SL v Vueling Airlines S.A.
(Case C-86/19)
(2019/C 164/21)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Mercantil n.o 9 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SL

Defendant: Vueling Airlines S.A.

Question referred

Where the loss of a suitcase has been established, must the airline compensate the passenger in each and every case with the maximum compensation limit of SDR 1 131, since that is the most serious of the situations provided for in Articles 17(2) and 22(2) of the Montreal Convention of 28 May 1999, or is that maximum compensation limit one which can be adjusted by the court, including in the event of loss of a suitcase, in the light of the circumstances, so that the amount of SDR 1 131 will be awarded only if the passenger establishes, by whatever means are permitted in law, that the value of the items and personal effects he was carrying in the checked baggage, and of those which he had to purchase to replace them, came to that limit, or, failing that, may other criteria be taken into account, such as, for example, the weight of the suitcase or whether the baggage was lost on the outbound or return journey, for the purposes of assessing the non-material damage caused by the inconvenience arising from the loss of the passenger’s baggage?
Case T-461/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — TN v ENISA (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Head of Unit post — Inclusion on the reserve list — Acceptance of the offer of employment — Withdrawal of the offer of employment — Conditions of employment — Character references — Article 12 of the CEOS — Manifest error of assessment — Processing of personal data — Right to be heard — Liability)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: administrator, damages, data protection, indemnification, personal data, promotion, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019103EN.01002901.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/29






Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — TN v ENISA
(Case T-461/17) (1)

((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Head of Unit post - Inclusion on the reserve list - Acceptance of the offer of employment - Withdrawal of the offer of employment - Conditions of employment - Character references - Article 12 of the CEOS - Manifest error of assessment - Processing of personal data - Right to be heard - Liability))
(2019/C 103/37)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TN (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (represented by: A. Ryan, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, the annulment of the decision of 25 November 2016 by which ENISA withdrew the offer of employment made to the applicant for the position of Head of the Administrative Services Unit, as well as the annulment of the decision of 20 April 2017 rejecting his complaint and, secondly, an order that ENISA pay compensation for the material and non-material loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result, inter alia, of the unlawful withdrawal of that offer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders TN to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 347, 16.10.2017.
Corrigendum to the Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) (OJ C 30, 24.1.2019)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical compound, chemical process, chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, pharmaceutical product, solvent








C_2019047EN.01001401.xml










6.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/14






Corrigendum to the Summary of European Commission Decisions on authorisations for the placing on the market for the use and/or for use of substances listed in Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (Published pursuant to Article 64(9) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006)
(
Official Journal of the European Union C 30 of 24 January 2019
)
(2019/C 47/07)
On page 4, in the first column ‘Reference of the decision’:

for:

‘C(2019)54’,


read:

‘C(2019) 53’.
Case C-93/19P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2019 by the European External Action Service against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2018 in Case T-315/17, Hebberecht v EEAS
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ethiopia, European official, Union delegation, diplomatic profession, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019155EN.01002701.xml










6.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 155/27






Appeal brought on 6 February 2019 by the European External Action Service against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2018 in Case T-315/17, Hebberecht v EEAS
(Case C-93/19P)
(2019/C 155/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and R. Spac, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Chantal Hebberecht

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2018 in Case T-315/17;










—


dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded;










—


order the other party to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the EEAS, the General Court erred in law in basing its judgment on an infringement of Article 1d(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and in considering that that provision contains a principle directly applicable to individual decisions adopted by the institution pursuant to those regulations (paragraphs 93 and 94 of the judgment under appeal).
In addition, even if Article 1d(2) of the Staff Regulations were to impose a directly applicable obligation, that provision could not apply in the present case, given the nature of the decision at issue, which concerned only the applicant in her capacity as Head of Delegation, and which was not suitable for the application of the principle of gender equality.
Case T-333/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark marry me — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mobile communication, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, virtual community








C_2019103EN.01004101.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/41






Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me)
(Case T-333/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark marry me - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 103/55)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 807/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign marry me as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Case T-741/15: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — British Aggregates and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Northern Ireland, State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, environmental protection, environmental tax, stone, tax exemption








C_2019122EN.01003102.xml










1.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 122/31






Order of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — British Aggregates and Others v Commission
(Case T-741/15) (1)

(2019/C 122/36)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.
Case T-332/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark MARRY ME — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, mobile communication, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, virtual community








C_2019103EN.01004002.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/40






Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (MARRY ME)
(Case T-332/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark MARRY ME - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 103/54)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 806/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign MARRY ME as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9249 — Triton/Sunweb) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electronic commerce, investment company, merger control, travel agency








C_2019057EN.01000301.xml










13.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 57/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9249 — Triton/Sunweb)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 57/05)
On 6 February 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9249. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019047EN.01000101.xml










6.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 47/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

5 February 2019
(2019/C 47/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1423 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,59 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4650 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,87803 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,3998 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1436 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,00 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6783 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,697 




HUF


Hungarian forint


317,41 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2872 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7455 




TRY


Turkish lira


5,9444 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5771 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4996 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9623 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6556 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5445 




KRW


South Korean won


1 276,75 




ZAR


South African rand


15,2773 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6938 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4120 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 964,21 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6628 




PHP


Philippine peso


59,743 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,8209 




THB


Thai baht


35,725 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,1942 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,7407 




INR


Indian rupee


81,8395 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-94/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — San Domenico Vetraria SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, basis of tax assessment, parent company, provision of services, staff, subsidiary








C_2019182EN.01001001.xml










27.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 182/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 6 February 2019 — San Domenico Vetraria SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate
(Case C-94/19)
(2019/C 182/12)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: San Domenico Vetraria SpA

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate

Question referred

Must Articles 2 and 6 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (1) and the principal of fiscal neutrality be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the lending or secondment of staff by a parent company in respect of which the subsidiary merely reimburses the related costs is regarded as irrelevant for value added tax purposes?


(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9242 — EDF/Ares/Real estate asset) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, investment company, merger control, property leasing, real estate business








C_2019055EN.01000201.xml










12.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 55/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9242 — EDF/Ares/Real estate asset)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 55/03)
On 6 February 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9242. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.