do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-440/16: Judgment of the General Court 28 February 2019 — Souruh v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Duty to state reasons — Error of assessment — Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2019139EN.01004501.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/45






Judgment of the General Court 28 February 2019 — Souruh v Council
(Case T-440/16) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality)
(2019/C 139/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Souruh SA (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and finally by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125) and its subsequent implementing acts, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255 CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Souruh SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union.







(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Case C-567/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Bene Factum’UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax provisions — Excise duty — Directive 92/83/EEC — Article 27(1)(b) — Exemptions — Definition of ‘products not for human consumption’ — Assessment criteria)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: alcohol, chemical alcohol, cosmetic product, dental medicine, excise duty, tax exemption








C_2019139EN.01001401.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/14






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Bene Factum’UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
(Case C-567/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax provisions - Excise duty - Directive 92/83/EEC - Article 27(1)(b) - Exemptions - Definition of ‘products not for human consumption’ - Assessment criteria)
(2019/C 139/12)
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant:‘Bene Factum’ UAB

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 27(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as applying to ethyl alcohol that has been denatured in accordance with the requirements of a Member State and is contained in cosmetics or mouthwashes which, although not intended, as such, for human consumption, are nevertheless consumed as alcoholic beverages by certain individuals.










2.


Article 27(1)(b) of Directive 92/83 must be interpreted as applying to ethyl alcohol that has been denatured in accordance with the requirements of a Member State and is contained in cosmetics or mouthwashes which, although not intended, as such, for human consumption, are nevertheless consumed as alcoholic beverages by certain individuals, when the person who imports those products from a Member State in order for them to be supplied to the end consumers in the Member State of destination by other persons, knowing that they are also consumed as alcoholic beverages, has them manufactured and labelled with that in mind in order to increase the sale of those products.






(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Case C-388/17: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement procedures in the transport sector — Directive 2004/17/EC — Scope — Article 5 — Activities relating to the provision or operation of networks to provide a service to the public in the field of transport by railways — Award, by a public national railway undertaking providing transport services, of cleaning service contracts for trains belonging to that undertaking — No prior publication)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, provision of services, public procurement, rail transport, services of general interest, tendering, transport company, transport network








C_2019139EN.01001101.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/11






Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen — Sweden) — Konkurrensverket v SJ AB
(Case C-388/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement procedures in the transport sector - Directive 2004/17/EC - Scope - Article 5 - Activities relating to the provision or operation of networks to provide a service to the public in the field of transport by railways - Award, by a public national railway undertaking providing transport services, of cleaning service contracts for trains belonging to that undertaking - No prior publication)
(2019/C 139/08)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Konkurrensverket

Defendant: SJ AB

Operative part of the judgment







1.


The second subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as meaning that there is a network of rail transport services, within the meaning of that provision, where transport services are provided, in application of national legislation transposing Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area, on a railway infrastructure managed by a national authority which allocates infrastructure capacity even if that authority is required to meet the requests of railway undertakings provided that the limits of that capacity are not reached;










2.


The first subparagraph of Article 5(1) of Directive 2004/17 must be interpreted as meaning that the activity pursued by a railway undertaking, which consists of providing transport services to the public in exercising a right of use of the railway network, is an ‘operation of networks’ for the purposes of that directive.






(1)  OJ C 293, 4.9.2017.
Case C-14/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. v European Commission (Appeal — Arbitration clause — Article 272 TFEU — Concept of a ‘declaratory action’ — Article 263 TFEU — Concept of an ‘administrative decision’ — Grant agreement concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007-2013) — Audit reports finding certain declared costs to be ineligible)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU programme, administrative order, audit, competitiveness, eligibility criteria, innovation








C_2019139EN.01001802.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/18






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 February 2019 — Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. v European Commission
(Case C-14/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - Arbitration clause - Article 272 TFEU - Concept of a ‘declaratory action’ - Article 263 TFEU - Concept of an ‘administrative decision’ - Grant agreement concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) (2007-2013) - Audit reports finding certain declared costs to be ineligible)
(2019/C 139/17)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Appellants: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, advogados)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and M.M. Farrajota, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 72, 26.2.2018.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019075EN.01000201.xml










28.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 75/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 February 2019
(2019/C 75/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1386 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,90 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4611 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,85503 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5443 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1354 




ISK


Iceland króna


136,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7123 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,661 




HUF


Hungarian forint


316,39 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3146 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7388 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,0257 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5909 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4962 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,9376 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6581 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5346 




KRW


South Korean won


1 273,47 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7838 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6073 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4285 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 967,73 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6316 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,981 




RUB


Russian rouble


74,8589 




THB


Thai baht


35,741 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2450 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,8150 




INR


Indian rupee


81,1585 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-415/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Duty to state reasons — Error of assessment — Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation — Right to property — Presumption of innocence — Proportionality)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, ownership, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, trade restriction








C_2019139EN.01004401.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/44






Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
(Case T-415/16) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Duty to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to respect for one’s good name and reputation - Right to property - Presumption of innocence - Proportionality)
(2019/C 139/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Kyriakopoulou, G. Étienne and A. Vitro, subsequently by S. Kyriakopoulou and A. Vitro, and finally by S. Kyriakopoulou, A. Vitro and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought pursuant to Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2016, L 141, p. 125) and its subsequent implementing acts, Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/917 of 29 May 2017 amending Decision 2013/255 CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2017, L 139, p. 62) and Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/778 of 28 May 2018 amending Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2018, L 131, p. 16), in so far as they concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Almashreq Investment Fund to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union.







(1)  OJ C 364, 3.10.2016.
Case T-216/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Pozza v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Place where main activity is pursued — Inter-institutional transfer — Decision to no longer grant expatriation allowance — Competence — Legitimate expectations)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, expatriate worker, reassignment








C_2019139EN.01005001.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/50






Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Pozza v Parliament
(Case T-216/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Place where main activity is pursued - Inter-institutional transfer - Decision to no longer grant expatriation allowance - Competence - Legitimate expectations)
(2019/C 139/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Geoffray Pozza (Waldbillig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: J. Van Pottelberge and M. Windisch, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of 8 June 2017 by which the Parliament no longer grants the applicant the expatriation allowance from the date on which he took up his duties.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action.











2.



Orders Mr Geoffray Pozza to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Case T-178/18: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission (Action for annulment — Plant-protection products — Active substance glyphosate — Renewal of inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: environmental protection, health risk, herbicide, market approval, plant health legislation








C_2019139EN.01005501.xml










15.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 139/55






Order of the General Court of 28 February 2019 — Région de Bruxelles-Capitale v Commission
(Case T-178/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Plant-protection products - Active substance glyphosate - Renewal of inclusion in the Annex to Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 139/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (represented by: A. Bailleux and B. Magarinos Rey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Lewis, I. Naglis and G. Koleva, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2324 of 12 December 2017 renewing the approval of the active substance glyphosate in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011(OJ 2017 L 333, p.10).

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of Justice Pesticides, the Walloon Region, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe), Health & Environment Alliance (HEAL), Nature & Progrès Belgique (Nature & Progrès), SomeOfUs, WeMove Europe (WeMove.EU), Monsanto Europe NV/SA, Monsanto Company, Helm AG, Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing Ltd, Albaugh Europe Sàrl, Albaugh TKI D.O.O. and Albaugh UK Ltd.











3.



The Région de Bruxelles-Capitale shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.











4.



The Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, the Commission, Justice Pesticides, the Walloon Region, PAN Europe, HEAL, Nature & Progrès, SomeOfUs, WeMove.EU, Monsanto Europe, Monsanto Company, Helm, Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing, Albaugh Europe, Albaugh TKI D.O.O. and Albaugh UK shall each bear their own costs in relation to the applications to intervene.







(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9277 — Nalka Invest/OneMed) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, furniture industry, investment company, medical device, merger control, provision of services








C_2019111EN.01000102.xml










25.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 111/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9277 — Nalka Invest/OneMed)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 111/02)
On 28 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 32019M9277. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-137/19: Action brought on 28 February 2019 — Souruh v Council
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions, legal person, ownership








C_2019148EN.01005802.xml










29.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 148/58






Action brought on 28 February 2019 — Souruh v Council
(Case T-137/19)
(2019/C 148/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Souruh SA (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 action admissible and well founded;










—


as a consequence, order the European Union to pay compensation for all the harm suffered by the applicant at an amount to be determined by the Court on an equitable basis;










—


in the alternative, order an expert to be appointed in order to establish the total extent of the harm suffered by the applicant;










—


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 a principal plea and an alternative plea, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-55/19, Cham Holding and Bena Properties v Council.
Case C-194/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 28 February 2019 — H. A. v État belge
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, foreign national, jurisdiction, right of asylum, stateless person








C_2019164EN.01002702.xml










13.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 164/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 28 February 2019 — H. A. v État belge
(Case C-194/19)
(2019/C 164/30)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: H. A.

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Must Article 27 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (1) (recast), considered alone or in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as requiring a national court, in order to guarantee the right to an effective remedy, to take into consideration, where appropriate, circumstances arising subsequent to a ‘Dublin transfer’ decision?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31.
Case C-7/19: Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — QG v Germanwings GmbH
Date: 2019-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, consumer protection, indemnification, strike, traveller








C_2019220EN.01002902.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/29






Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — QG v Germanwings GmbH
(Case C-7/19) (1)

(2019/C 220/37)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 122, 1.4.2019.