do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-611/17: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 April 2019 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Common fisheries policy — Conservation of resources — International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas — Total allowable catch (TAC) for Mediterranean swordfish — Regulation (EU) 2017/1398 — Fixing of fishing opportunities for 2017 — Exclusive competence of the European Union — Determination of the reference period — Reliability of the basic facts — Scope of judicial review — Article 17 TEU — Management of the EU’s interests within international bodies — Principle of relative stability — Conditions under which applicable — Principles of non-retroactivity, legal certainty, legitimate expectation and non-discrimination)
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: authorised catch, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, equal treatment, fishing agreement, judicial review, principle of legal certainty, retroactivity of a law, sea fish, sea fishing








C_2019220EN.01000301.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 30 April 2019 — Italian Republic v Council of the European Union
(Case C-611/17) (1)

(Actions for annulment - Common fisheries policy - Conservation of resources - International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas - Total allowable catch (TAC) for Mediterranean swordfish - Regulation (EU) 2017/1398 - Fixing of fishing opportunities for 2017 - Exclusive competence of the European Union - Determination of the reference period - Reliability of the basic facts - Scope of judicial review - Article 17 TEU - Management of the EU’s interests within international bodies - Principle of relative stability - Conditions under which applicable - Principles of non-retroactivity, legal certainty, legitimate expectation and non-discrimination)
(2019/C 220/04)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and E. Moro, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: V. Ester Casas and subsequently by M.J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Moro and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders the Italian Republic to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;










3.


Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 424, 11.12.2017.
Case T-136/18: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark K — Absolute ground for invalidity — Bad faith — Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, cycle and motorcycle industry, footwear industry, measuring equipment, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2019213EN.01003001.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/30






Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Kuota International v EUIPO — Sintema Sport (K)
(Case T-136/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark K - Absolute ground for invalidity - Bad faith - Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 213/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Kuota International Corp. Ltd (Road Town, British Virgin Isles) (represented by: C. Herissay Ducamp, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sintema Sport Srl (Albiate, Italy)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 December 2017 (Case R 3111/2014-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Kuota International and Sintema Sport.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 December 2017 (Case R 3111/2014-1);











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders EUIPO to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Case T-546/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — XM and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, children's rights, education grant, equal treatment, pay, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, school fees








C_2019213EN.01008303.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/83






Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — XM and Others v Commission
(Case T-546/18) (1)

(2019/C 213/81)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case T-353/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Promeco v EUIPO — Aerts (dishes) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, household article








C_2019213EN.01003501.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/35






Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Promeco v EUIPO — Aerts (dishes)
(Case T-353/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 213/36)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Promeco NV (Kortrijk, Belgium) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and H. O'Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Aerts NV (Geel, Belgium) (represented by: G. Glas and T. Carmeliet, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 February 2018 (Case R 459/2016–G) relating to invalidity proceedings between Promeco NV and Aerts NV.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.











2.



Promeco NV shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).











3.



Aerts NV shall bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Case T-737/17: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Wattiau v Parliament (Civil service — Social Security — JSIS — Reimbursement of medical costs — Agreement concluded inter alia between the European Union, Luxembourg and the Entente des hôpitaux luxembourgeois on the scales of fees for hospital care received by JSIS members — Plea of illegality — Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality — First paragraph of Article 18 TFEU — Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 39 of the Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials)
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, Luxembourg, discrimination on the basis of nationality, health expenditure, health insurance, legality








C_2019213EN.01002901.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/29






Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Wattiau v Parliament
(Case T-737/17) (1)

(Civil service - Social Security - JSIS - Reimbursement of medical costs - Agreement concluded inter alia between the European Union, Luxembourg and the Entente des hôpitaux luxembourgeois on the scales of fees for hospital care received by JSIS members - Plea of illegality - Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality - First paragraph of Article 18 TFEU - Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 39 of the Joint rules on sickness insurance for officials)
(2019/C 213/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Francis Wattiau (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

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

Intervener in support of the applicant: Association des seniors de la fonction publique européenne (SFPE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of the decision of the Luxembourg Settlements Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Union, as evidenced in payment slip No 244 of 25 January 2017, rendering the applicant liable for payment of the sum of EUR 843.01 and, secondly, of the decision of the Secretary General of the Parliament, as the appointing authority, of 2 August 2017, confirming that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Luxembourg Settlements Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme, as evidenced in payment slip No 244 of 25 January 2017, rendering Mr Francis Wattiau liable for payment of the sum of EUR 843.01, corresponding to 15 % of the medical bill of 30 May 2016;











2.



Orders the Parliament, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by Mr Wattiau.







(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Case C-341/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2019 — MH Müller Handels GmbH v MJ
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, freedom of religious beliefs, private sector, religious discrimination, religious symbol, staff regulations








C_2019255EN.01002001.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) lodged on 30 April 2019 — MH Müller Handels GmbH v MJ
(Case C-341/19)
(2019/C 255/29)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesarbeitsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant on a point of law: MH Müller Handels GmbH

Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: MJ

Questions referred







1.


Can established indirect unequal treatment on grounds of religion within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) resulting from an internal rule of a private undertaking, be justifiable only if, according to that rule, it is prohibited to wear any visible sign of religious, political or other philosophical beliefs, and not only such signs as are prominent and large-scale?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the negative:






(a)


Is Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the rights derived from Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and from Article 9 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms may be taken into account in the examination of whether established indirect unequal treatment on grounds of religion is justifiable on the basis of an internal rule of a private undertaking which prohibits the wearing of prominent, large-scale signs of religious, political or other philosophical beliefs?










(b)


Is Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2000/78/EC to be interpreted as meaning that national rules of constitutional status which protect freedom of religion may be taken into account as more favourable provisions within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/78/EC in the examination of whether established indirect unequal treatment on grounds of religion is justifiable on the basis of an internal rule of a private undertaking which prohibits the wearing of prominent, large-scale signs of religious, political or other philosophical beliefs?














3.


If Questions 2(a) and 2(b) are answered in the negative:






 


In the examination of an instruction based on an internal rule of a private undertaking which prohibits the wearing of prominent, large-scale signs of religious, political or other philosophical beliefs, must national rules of constitutional status which protect freedom of religion be set aside because of primary EU law, even if primary EU law, such as, for example, Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, recognises national laws and practices?










(1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Case T-570/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YQ v Commission
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, children's rights, education grant, equal treatment, pay, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, school fees








C_2019213EN.01008401.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/84






Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YQ v Commission
(Case T-570/18) (1)

(2019/C 213/82)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
Case T-572/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YS v Commission
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, children's rights, education grant, equal treatment, pay, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to education, school fees








C_2019213EN.01008403.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/84






Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — YS v Commission
(Case T-572/18) (1)

(2019/C 213/84)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 408, 12.11.2018.
Case T-508/18: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — OLX v EUIPO — Stra (STRADIA)
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic commerce, information analysis, marketing, mobile phone, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019213EN.01008301.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/83






Order of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — OLX v EUIPO — Stra (STRADIA)
(Case T-508/18) (1)

(2019/C 213/79)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 373, 15.10.2018.
Case T-516/16 and T-536/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Alvarez and Bejarano and Others v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Members of the contract staff — Reform of the Staff Regulations — Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time — Link between the grant of those entitlements and the expatriate status — Abolition of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and travelling time)
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: allowances and expenses, amendment of a law, contract staff, expatriate worker, paid leave, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019220EN.01003102.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/31






Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Alvarez and Bejarano and Others v Commission
(Case T-516/16 and T-536/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulations - Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time - Link between the grant of those entitlements and the expatriate status - Abolition of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and travelling time)
(2019/C 220/40)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Maria Alvarez y Bejarano (Namur, Belgium) and the 11 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented initially by E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented initially by M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently by M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Actions pursuant to Article 270 TFEU for annulment of the decisions no longer to allow the applicants, as of 1 January 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel costs so that they may maintain a connection with their place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders that Cases T-516/16 and T-536/16 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;











2.



Dismisses the actions;











3.



Orders Ms Maria Alvarez y Bejarano and the other officials and members of staff of the European Commission whose names appear in the annex to pay the costs;











4.



Orders the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament each to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-85/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).
Case T-281/19: Action brought on 30 April 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, meat, milk product, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019213EN.01007401.xml










24.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 213/74






Action brought on 30 April 2019 — Chypre v EUIPO — Filotas Bellas & Yios (Halloumi Vermion grill cheese M BELAS PREMIUM GREEK DAIRY SINCE 1927)
(Case T-281/19)
(2019/C 213/71)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC (Queen’s Counsel), S. Baran, Barrister, 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 χαλούμι 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 15 February 2019 in Case R 2298/2017-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


the Defendant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant for Annulment.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 59(1)(b) of (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-523/16 and T-542/16: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Ardalic and Others v Council (Civil service — Officials — Members of the contract staff — Reform of the Staff Regulation — Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time — Link between the grant of those benefits and expatriate or foreign resident status — Abolition of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and of travelling time)
Date: 2019-04-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: allowances and expenses, amendment of a law, contract staff, expatriate worker, paid leave, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU)








C_2019220EN.01003201.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/32






Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2019 — Ardalic and Others v Council
(Case T-523/16 and T-542/16) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Members of the contract staff - Reform of the Staff Regulation - Less favourable scheme for the flat-rate payment of travel expenses and for the increase in annual leave by way of additional days off as travelling time - Link between the grant of those benefits and expatriate or foreign resident status - Abolition of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses and of travelling time)
(2019/C 220/41)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Jakov Ardalic (Brussels, Belgium) and the 11 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially M. Bauer and M. Veiga, and subsequently M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents),

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decisions no longer to grant the applicants, as from 1 January 2014, travelling time or reimbursement of annual travel expenses so that they may maintain a relationship with their place of origin.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Joins Cases T-523/16 and T-542/16 for the purposes of the judgment;











2.



Dismisses the actions;











3.



Orders Mr Jakov Ardalic and the other officials or members of staff of the Council of the European Union whose names appear in the annex to the judgment to pay the costs;











4.



Orders the European Parliament to pay its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014 (case initially registered at the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as Case F-100/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).