do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-223/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — European Union figurative mark ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS — Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) — No distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) — Infringement of the right to be heard — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) — Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, carriage of goods, chemical product, distributor, paints and varnishes, registered trade mark, storage, trade-mark law








C_2019187EN.01006701.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/67






Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)
(Case T-223/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - European Union figurative mark ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2007/1001) - No distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 7(3) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Infringement of the right to be heard - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001) - Evidence submitted for the first time before the Court)
(2019/C 187/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peñiscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, A. Söder and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Rajendra, Solicitor, and by S. Malynicz QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 (Case R 2522/2015-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Coatings Foreign IP and Adapta Color.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Adapta Color, SL to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 202, 26.6.2017.
Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 103/2019 of 11 April 2019 amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2019/1233]
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: EEA Joint Committee
Subjects: European Economic Area, United Kingdom, contract, financial instrument, financial legislation, financial transaction, revision of an agreement, securities, technical standard, withdrawal from the EU




L_2019192EN.01005801.xml










18.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 192/58








            DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 103/2019
of 11 April 2019
         
amending Annex IX (Financial services) to the EEA Agreement [2019/1233]


THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘the EEA Agreement’), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:







(1)


Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/565 of 28 March 2019 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2205, Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/592 and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1178 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the date at which the clearing obligation takes effect for certain types of contracts (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.












(2)


Annex IX to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following indent is added in points 31bcp (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2205), 31bcq (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/592) and 31bcr (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1178) of Annex IX to the EEA Agreement:







‘—



32019 R 0565: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/565 of 28 March 2019 (OJ L 99, 10.4.2019, p. 6).’







Article 2
The text of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/565 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on 11 April 2019, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).


Article 4
This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 11 April 2019.


For the EEA Joint Committee


The President

Claude MAERTEN
            





(1)  
            OJ L 99, 10.4.2019, p. 6.

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.
Case C-603/17: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley v Arcadia Petroleum Limited and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Lugano II Convention — Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Title II, Section 5 (Articles 18 to 21) — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment)
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: international convention, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, managing director, private international law, work contract








C_2019206EN.01000601.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/6






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — United Kingdom) — Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley v Arcadia Petroleum Limited and Others
(Case C-603/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Lugano II Convention - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Title II, Section 5 (Articles 18 to 21) - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment)
(2019/C 206/07)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Peter Bosworth, Colin Hurley

Defendants: Arcadia Petroleum Limited and Others

Operative part of the judgment

The provisions of Section 5 of Title II (Articles 18 to 21) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that a contract between a company and a natural person performing the duties of director of that company does not create a relationship of subordination between them and cannot, therefore, be treated as an ‘individual contract of employment’, within the meaning of those provisions, where, even if the shareholder(s) of that company have the power to procure the termination of that contract, that person is able to determine or does determine the terms of that contract and has control and autonomy over the day-to-day operation of that company’s business and the performance of his own duties.


(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.
Case T-655/17: Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ansell (ZARA TANZANIA ADVETURES) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES — Earlier EU word marks ZARA — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks — Detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks)
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, tourism, trade-mark law








C_2019187EN.01007301.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/73






Judgment of the General Court of 11 April 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ansell (ZARA TANZANIA ADVETURES)
(Case T-655/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES - Earlier EU word marks ZARA - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks - Detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks)
(2019/C 187/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, G. Macías Bonilla, P. López Ronda and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Zainab Ansell and Roger Ansell (Moshi, Tanzania)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 July 2017 (Joined Cases R 2330/2011-2 and R 2369/2011 2), relating to opposition proceedings between Industria de Diseño Textil, on the one hand, and Mrs Ansell and Mr Ansell, on the other hand.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 5 July 2017 (Joined Cases R 2330/2011-2 and R 2369/2011-2) in so far as the Board of Appeal partially upheld the appeal brought by Mrs Ansell and Mr Ansell (Case R 2369/2011-2) and allowed the mark applied for to proceed to registration in respect of the services which are listed in point 3 of the operative part of that decision and are in Classes 39 and 43 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) in the course of the proceedings before the General Court.







(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Case C-131/18: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Law on undertakings — Combating late payment in commercial transactions — Directive 2011/7/EU — Article 6 — Compensation for recovery costs — Payment of a fixed sum and of reasonable compensation — Deduction of fixed sum from the costs of instructing a lawyer prior to bringing proceedings before a court)
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, commercial transaction, company law, indemnification, lawyer, payment








C_2019280EN.01001001.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/10






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Vanessa Gambietz v Erika Ziegler
(Case C-131/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Law on undertakings - Combating late payment in commercial transactions - Directive 2011/7/EU - Article 6 - Compensation for recovery costs - Payment of a fixed sum and of reasonable compensation - Deduction of fixed sum from the costs of instructing a lawyer prior to bringing proceedings before a court)
(2019/C 280/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Vanessa Gambietz

Defendant: Erika Ziegler

Operative part of the order

Article 6(3) of Directive 2011/7/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted to mean that the fixed sum of EUR 40, to which the creditor is entitled pursuant to Article 6(1) of that directive, must be deducted from the reasonable compensation provided for in Article 6(3) thereof.


(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.
Case C-303/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v VR
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, family, family benefit, foreign national, residence, residence permit, third country








C_2019288EN.01001401.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/14






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v VR
(Case C-303/19)
(2019/C 288/18)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Respondent and cross-appellant: VR

Question referred

Should Article 11(1)(d) of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 (1) and the principle of equal treatment for long-term residents and national citizens be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation under which, unlike the provisions laid down for nationals of the Member State, the family members of a worker who is a long-term resident and a citizen of a third country are excluded when determining the members of the family unit, for the purpose of calculating the family unit allowance, where those individuals live in the third country of origin?


(1)  Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).
Case C-298/19: Action brought on 11 April 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement procedure (EU), pollution control measures, pollution from agricultural sources, sanction (EU), water protection








C_2019213EN.01001501.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/15






Action brought on 11 April 2019 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
(Case C-298/19)
(2019/C 213/14)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinos’s and E. Emanuele, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:






—


Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by failing to take all measures required for the implementation of the judgment delivered by the Court on 23 April 2015, in Case C-149/14, Rollison v Greece, (1) has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;










—


Order the Hellenic Republic to pay a proposed penalty payment of EUR 23 753.25 for each day of delay in the implementation of the judgment delivered in Case C-149/14, from the date when the judgment in this case is delivered until the date when the judgment that was delivered in C-149/14 has been implemented;










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay a daily lump sum amounting to EUR 2 639.25 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-149/14 until the date when the judgment in the present case is delivered or the date when the judgment in C-149/14 is implemented, if earlier, and provided that the above amount does not exceed it, to order payment of a minimum lump sum of EUR 1 310 000,










—


order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


On the basis of Article 260(1) TFEU, the Hellenic Republic is obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-149/14. However, the Hellenic Republic failed to take all the necessary measures to comply with the operative part of that judgment. In particular, the Hellenic Republic failed to undertake a programme of work in relation to vulnerable areas characterised by the presence of bodies of surface water or groundwater which are affected by pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. Consequently, the Commission decided to bring an action before the Court.










2.


By this action, the Commission asks the Court to impose on the Hellenic Republic a lump sum amounting to EUR 2 639.25 per day and a penalty payment of EUR 23 753.25 per day. The amounts of the lump sum and the penalty payment have been calculated taking into account the seriousness and duration of the infringement and the deterrent effect, based on that Member State’s ability to pay.






(1)  1EU:C:2015:264.
Case C-295/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação SA v Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Payment services in the internal market — Directive 2007/64/EC — Articles 2 and 58 — Scope — Payment service user — Meaning — Execution of a direct-debit payment order issued by a third party in respect of an account of which that party is not the holder — No authorisation from the holder of the debited account — Unauthorised payment transactions)
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: electronic money, intra-EU payment, payment system, single market








C_2019206EN.01001602.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/16






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto — Portugal) — Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação SA v Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA
(Case C-295/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Payment services in the internal market - Directive 2007/64/EC - Articles 2 and 58 - Scope - Payment service user - Meaning - Execution of a direct-debit payment order issued by a third party in respect of an account of which that party is not the holder - No authorisation from the holder of the debited account - Unauthorised payment transactions)
(2019/C 206/20)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Mediterranean Shipping Company (Portugal) — Agentes de Navegação SA

Defendants: Banco Comercial Português SA, Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 2(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, must be interpreted to the effect that the notion of ‘payment services’, for the purposes of that provision, includes the execution of direct debits, initiated by the payee, on a payment account of which it is not the holder, where the holder of the account thus debited does not consent to those direct debits.










2.


Article 58 of Directive 2007/64 must be interpreted to the effect that the notion of ‘payment service user’, for the purposes of that article, includes the holder of a payment account on which direct debits were executed without its consent.






(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Case C-302/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v WS
Date: 2019-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, family, family benefit, foreign national, residence, residence permit, third country, work permit








C_2019288EN.01001302.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 11 April 2019 — Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale v WS
(Case C-302/19)
(2019/C 288/17)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale

Respondent and cross-appellant: WS

Question referred

Should Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 (1) and the principle of equal treatment for holders of single permits to reside and work and national citizens be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national legislation under which, unlike the provisions laid down for nationals of the Member State, the family members of a worker with a single permit from a third country are excluded when determining the members of the family unit, for the purpose of calculating the family unit allowance, where those family members live in the third country of origin?


(1)  Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State (OJ 2011 L 343, p. 1).