do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-188/18: Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, sanction (EU), service concession








C_2019288EN.01003802.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/38






Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, French Republic
(Case C-188/18) (1)

(2019/C 288/47)
Language of the case: Slovenian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
C-643/18: Order of the President of the of the Court of 12 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — British Airways plc v MF
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, indemnification, traveller








C_2019288EN.01003902.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/39






Order of the President of the of the Court of 12 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg — Austria) — British Airways plc v MF
(C-643/18) (1)

(2019/C 288/50)
Language of the case: German
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1922 of 10 October 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items (OJ L 319, 14.12.2018)
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: broker, carriage of goods, dual-use good, export (EU), export licence, export monitoring, intra-EU trade, trade restriction, transit








L_2019103EN.01006001.xml










12.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 103/60







Corrigendum to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/1922 of 10 October 2018 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 319 of 14 December 2018
)


On page 129, under item 3B001.f, points 3 and 4, the alignment of points is corrected:
for:







‘3.


Equipment specially designed for mask making having all of the following:






a.


A deflected focussed electron beam, ion beam or “laser” beam; and











b.


Having any of the following:






1.


A full-width half-maximum (FWHM) spot size smaller than 65 nm and an image placement less than 17 nm (mean + 3 sigma); or











2.


Not used;










3.


A second-layer overlay error of less than 23 nm (mean + 3 sigma) on the mask;










4.


Equipment designed for device processing using direct writing methods, having all of the following:






a.


A deflected focused electron beam; and











b.


Having any of the following:






1.


A minimum beam size equal to or smaller than 15 nm; or











2.


An overlay error less than 27 nm (mean + 3 sigma);’,





















read:







‘3.


Equipment specially designed for mask making having all of the following:






a.


A deflected focussed electron beam, ion beam or “laser” beam; and











b.


Having any of the following:






1.


A full-width half-maximum (FWHM) spot size smaller than 65 nm and an image placement less than 17 nm (mean + 3 sigma); or











2.


Not used;










3.


A second-layer overlay error of less than 23 nm (mean + 3 sigma) on the mask;










4.


Equipment designed for device processing using direct writing methods, having all of the following:






a.


A deflected focused electron beam; and











b.


Having any of the following:






1.


A minimum beam size equal to or smaller than 15 nm; or











2.


An overlay error less than 27 nm (mean + 3 sigma);’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019136EN.01001201.xml










12.4.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 136/12






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 April 2019
(2019/C 136/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1264 




JPY


Japanese yen


125,30 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4648 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86168 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,4370 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1304 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,20 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,5885 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,606 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,71 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2830 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7593 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,4724 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5760 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5067 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8354 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6705 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5254 




KRW


South Korean won


1 285,17 




ZAR


South African rand


15,7752 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,5672 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4385 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 966,16 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6383 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,506 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,6590 




THB


Thai baht


35,848 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3221 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2826 




INR


Indian rupee


77,6855 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9290 — Softbank Group/Altamira) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: Internet of Things, credit institution, economic concentration, energy industry, investment company, merger control, provision of services, subsidiary, telecommunications








C_2019158EN.01000102.xml










10.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 158/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9290 — Softbank Group/Altamira)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 158/02)
On 12 April 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 32019M9290. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-4/19: Order of the General Court of 12 April 2019 — Hankintatukku Arno Latvus v EUIPO — Triaz Group (VIVANIA)
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, dietary product, pharmaceutical product, polishing and scouring preparations, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019206EN.01009703.xml










17.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 206/97






Order of the General Court of 12 April 2019 — Hankintatukku Arno Latvus v EUIPO — Triaz Group (VIVANIA)
(Case T-4/19) (1)

(2019/C 206/88)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 72, 25.2.2019.
Case T-249/19: Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, diplomatic profession, expatriate worker, residence








C_2019187EN.01008701.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/87






Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Karpeta-Kovalyova v Commission
(Case T-249/19)
(2019/C 187/94)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Marina Karpeta-Kovalyova (Woluwe Saint Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul both challenged decisions so that the European Commission reevaluates the applicant’s status and grant her the expatriation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance, the installation allowance, the travel costs on taking up duty and the removal expenses;










—


order the defendant to bear its costs as well as the applicant’s costs for the current proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging a false interpretation of article 4(1) (a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulation concerning the definition of the habitual residence, given that the contested decisions disregard the diplomatic status of the applicant’s spouse covering the most of the critical period of 5 years ending six months before she entered the service and because they took into account interim contracts the applicant has had, while her family returned back to their home country.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the contested decisions since they don’t take into account facts that undeniably and beyond any assessment prove the removal of the entire household from Brussels back to the home country of the applicant, namely on the basis of the unsubstantiated assumptions.
Case C-69/18: Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of German, French Republic
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: audit, auditing, consolidated account, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, sanction (EU)








C_2019280EN.01003202.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/32






Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia, supported by: Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of German, French Republic
(Case C-69/18) (1)

(2019/C 280/45)
Language of the case: Slovenian
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Case T-492/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2019 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Measures implemented by Germany in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport and airlines using that airport — Decision regarding the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport — Lack of individual concern — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Germany, Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate, State aid, airport, capital increase, charges for use of infrastructure, control of State aid, low cost airline








C_2019187EN.01005901.xml










3.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 187/59






Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2019 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission
(Case T-492/15) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Measures implemented by Germany in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport and airlines using that airport - Decision regarding the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport - Lack of individual concern - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 187/63)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) (represented by: Professor C. Koenig) and Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Objet

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/789 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.21121 (C29/08) (ex NN 54/07) implemented by Germany concerning the financing of Frankfurt Hahn airport and the financial relations between the airport and Ryanair (OJ 2016 L 134, p. 46).

Order







1)



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2)



Deutsche Lufthansa AG is ordered to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.
Case C-304/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 12 April 2019 — Ira Invest SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural land, aid to agriculture, aquaculture, arable land, eligibility criteria, single payment scheme, utilised agricultural area








C_2019288EN.01001501.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/15






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 12 April 2019 — Ira Invest SRL v Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea
(Case C-304/19)
(2019/C 288/19)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant/applicant at first instance: Ira Invest SRL

Respondent/defendant at first instance: Agenția de Plăți și Intervenție pentru Agricultură — Centrul Județean Tulcea

Question referred

Must Article 4(1)(b), (c), (e) and (f), Article 10, Article 21(1) and Article 32(1) to (5) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, excludes a farmer from payment of entitlements on the ground that land with aquaculture facilities used as arable land does not constitute an ‘agricultural area’ within the meaning of Article 4 of the regulation?


(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).
Case T-248/19: Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Bilde v Parliament
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, abuse of power, offence, parliamentary immunity








C_2019213EN.01005801.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/58






Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Bilde v Parliament
(Case T-248/19)
(2019/C 213/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Dominique Bilde (Lagarde, France) (represented by: F. Wagner, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the decision of the European Parliament P8_TA-PROV(2019)0137, of 12 March 2019, on the request for the waiver of the immunity of the applicant 2018/2267(IMM), and which actually waived the applicant’s immunity;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266), of Article 5(1) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 2005 L 44, p. 1) and of the Communications to Members Nos 11/2003 and 22/2016.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging an abuse of process, more specifically, infringement of Article 43 of the Communication to Members No 11/2016, inasmuch as the underlying purpose of the charges is to damage the applicant’s political activity, which constitutes a case of fumus persecutionis against him.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the general principles of EU law ‘ne bis in idem’ and ‘electa una via’, an abuse of process and a misuse of powers.
Case T-260/19: Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Al-Tarazi v Council
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Syria, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person, ownership, principle of proportionality, rights of the defence








C_2019213EN.01006202.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/62






Action brought on 12 April 2019 — Al-Tarazi v Council
(Case T-260/19)
(2019/C 213/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Mazen Al-Tarazi (Shuwaikh, Kuwait) (represented by: G. Beck and A. Khan, Barristers, and S. Patel, Solicitor)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 (1) and Article 1 of Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 (2) inapplicable to the applicant;










—


annul, insofar as it concerns the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation 2019/85 and Council implementing Decision 2019/87;










—


declare that the applicant’s name be removed from the Annex (at number 266 thereto) of Council Implementing Regulation 2019/85 and from the Annex (at number 266 thereto) of Council Implementing Decision 2019/87; and










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has provided insufficient or unsubstantiated reasons for the applicant’s designation.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation is based on a manifest error of assessment of the facts, in so far as the defendant would have failed to adduce evidence of the facts indicated which would underpin or would purportedly underpin the reasoning of the measures taken or in so far as the defendant would have drawn unreasonable inferences from these facts.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation violates the applicant’s right of defence.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s designation violates the applicant’s property rights, freedom to trade and the principle of proportionality.






(1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/85 of 21 January 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 4).

(2)  Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2019/87 of 21 January 2019 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ L 18I, 21.1.2019, p. 13).
Case C-305/19: Action brought on 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Czech Republic
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: building, building services, energy consumption, energy efficiency, energy saving, environmental standard, infringement of EU law








C_2019213EN.01001701.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/17






Action brought on 12 April 2019 — European Commission v Czech Republic
(Case C-305/19)
(2019/C 213/16)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Ondrůšek, K. Talabér-Ritz, Agents)

Defendant: Czech Republic

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by failing to ensure that in buildings with a total useful floor area of over 500m2, for which an energy performance certificate has been issued under Article 12(1) of Directive 2010/31/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, and which are frequently visited by the public, the energy performance certificates must be displayed, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) of that directive;










—


order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments







1.


Article 13(2) of Directive 2010/31/EU provides for the obligation to display the energy performance certificate, issued in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Directive, in cases where a building with a useful floor area of over 500m2 is frequently visited by the public.










2.


However, Czech law (§ 7a zákon č. 406/2000 Sb., o hospodaření energií, ve znění pozdějších předpisů (Paragraph 7a of Law No 406/2000 on the management of energy, as amended)) provides for the obligation to display an energy performance certificate, or energy performance passport, for those buildings only where they are occupied by public authorities. Czech law thus does not provide for the obligation to display an energy performance passport in situations where those buildings are occupied by bodies other than public authorities, and are frequently visited by the public. The legislation required is still merely at the preparatory stage.










3.


The Czech Republic has therefore not ensured that, in buildings with a total useful floor area of over 500m2 for which an energy performance certificate has been issued under Article 12(1) of the directive, and which are frequently visited by the public, the energy performance certificate must be displayed, and thus it has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(2) of the Directive.






(1)  OJ 2010 L 153, p. 13.
Case C-300/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 April 2019 — UQ v Marclean Technologies, S.L.U.
Date: 2019-04-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, collective dismissal, unfair dismissal, worker consultation, worker information








C_2019295EN.01000401.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 12 April 2019 — UQ v Marclean Technologies, S.L.U.
(Case C-300/19)
(2019/C 295/06)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Barcelona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: UQ

Defendant: Marclean Technologies, S.L.U.

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted as meaning that the reference period of 30 or 90 days laid down as a condition for the existence of collective redundancies must always be calculated retrospectively from the date of the individual dismissal at issue?










2.


Second question: May Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted as meaning that the reference period of 30 or 90 days laid down as a condition for the existence of collective redundancies may be calculated prospectively from the date of the individual dismissal at issue without the need for subsequent terminations to be regarded as abusive?










3.


Third question: May the reference periods in Article 1(1)(a)(i) and (ii) of Council Directive 98/59/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies be interpreted in such a way as to permit account to be taken of dismissals or terminations taking place within 30 or 90 days of the dismissal at issue as falling at some point within those periods?






(1)  OJ 1998, L 225, p. 16.