do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-37/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Bank Tejarat v Council (Non-contractual liability — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran — Freezing of funds — Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States — Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following its inclusion and re-inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, bank, economic sanctions, indemnification, international sanctions








C_2019230EN.01002901.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/29






Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Bank Tejarat v Council
(Case T-37/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran - Freezing of funds - Restriction on admission to the territory of the Member States - Compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant following its inclusion and re-inclusion in the list of persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures at issue - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)
(2019/C 230/35)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, T. Otty QC, R. Blakeley, V. Zaiwalla, H. Leith, Barristers, and T. de la Mare QC)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Havas and J. Norris, Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU for compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by the applicant as a result of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Bank Tejarat to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;











3.



Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.
Case C-689/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’ v Land Niedersachsen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Shipment of waste — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Waste subject to the prior written notification and consent procedure — Shipments within the European Union — Article 1(3)(b) — Exclusion from the regulation’s scope — Waste generated on board ships — Waste on board a ship following damage at sea)
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accidental pollution, environmental protection, hazardous waste, marine pollution, maritime shipping, pollution from ships, waste management








C_2019255EN.01000602.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/6






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’ v Land Niedersachsen
(Case C-689/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Shipment of waste - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Waste subject to the prior written notification and consent procedure - Shipments within the European Union - Article 1(3)(b) - Exclusion from the regulation’s scope - Waste generated on board ships - Waste on board a ship following damage at sea)
(2019/C 255/08)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht München I

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Conti 11. Container Schiffahrts-GmbH & Co. KG Ms ‘MSC Flaminia’

Defendant: Land Niedersachsen

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste must be interpreted as meaning that residues, in the form of scrap metal and of fire-extinguishing water mixed with sludge and cargo residues, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, attributable to damage occurring on board a ship at sea, must be regarded as waste generated on board ships, within the meaning of that provision, which is, therefore, excluded from that regulation’s scope until it is offloaded in order to be recovered or disposed of.


(1)  OJ C 94, 12.3.2018.
Case T-813/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Nerantzaki v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of competition — Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 — Conditions for admission — Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition — Error of law)
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, European official, competition (EU), recruitment








C_2019230EN.01003302.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/33






Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Nerantzaki v Commission
(Case T-813/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of competition - Open competition EPSO/AD/331/16 - Conditions for admission - Decision of the selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of the competition - Error of law)
(2019/C 230/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Eleni Nerantzaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: N. Korogiannakis, and subsequently by L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: P. Mihaylova and L. Radu Bouyon, and subsequently by L. Radu Bouyon, D. Milanowska and B. Mongin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for annulment of, first, the decision of the selection board of 15 May 2017 not to admit the applicant to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/331/16 and, second, the decision of the appointing authority of 14 September 2017 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of the competition selection board not to admit the applicant to the next stage of that competition.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the selection board of 15 May 2017 not to admit Ms Eleni Nerantzaki to the next stage of Open Competition EPSO/AD/331/16;











2.



Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
New EU Prize for schools teaching about the EU
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cultural prize, educational institution, promotion of the European idea, secondary education, teacher








C_2019167EN.01000901.xml










16.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/9






New EU Prize for schools teaching about the EU
(2019/C 167/05)
The European Union is establishing a new prize to reward teachers and schools for improving learning about the European Union at schools.
The new prize will bear the name ‘Jan Amos Comenius Prize for high quality teaching about the European Union’.
Eligible candidates are secondary schools established in the European Union.
The prize will reward outstanding secondary school teachers and schools that help their pupils learn about the EU in ways that inspire. It will provide EU-wide recognition and visibility to relevant work and will highlight the importance of teaching and learning about the EU at a young age. It will showcase inspirational teaching methods that actively engage pupils in learning about the EU and will help spread these practices.
The 2019 Call for Applications is foreseen to be published in September 2019.
The European Commission will establish and publish the Contest Rules. These will lay down the detailed conditions for participation, the deadlines, the award criteria, the number and amount of the prizes, the arrangements for the payments to winners.
The Prize is an initiative of the European Parliament and will be implemented by the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture.
Case C-509/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Christa Plessers v PREFACO NV, Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Articles 3 to 5 — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Exceptions — Insolvency proceedings — Proceedings for judicial restructuring by transfer under judicial supervision — Total or partial safeguard of the undertaking — National legislation authorising the transferee, after the transfer, to choose which employees to keep on)
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company in difficulties, financial solvency, job security, labour law, transfer of businesses








C_2019255EN.01000401.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/4






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Christa Plessers v PREFACO NV, Belgische Staat
(Case C-509/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Articles 3 to 5 - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Exceptions - Insolvency proceedings - Proceedings for judicial restructuring by transfer under judicial supervision - Total or partial safeguard of the undertaking - National legislation authorising the transferee, after the transfer, to choose which employees to keep on)
(2019/C 255/05)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidshof te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Christa Plessers

Defendants: PREFACO NV, Belgische Staat

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, in particular Articles 3 to 5 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the event of the transfer of an undertaking which has taken place in the context of proceedings for judicial restructuring by transfer under judicial supervision applied with a view to maintaining all or part of the transferor or its activity, entitles the transferee to choose the employees which it wishes to keep on


(1)  OJ C 374, 6.11.2017.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019167EN.01000401.xml










16.5.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 167/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

15 May 2019
(2019/C 167/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1183 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,24 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4695 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,86820 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7688 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1276 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,40 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8003 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,760 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,15 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3094 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7615 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,7780 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6166 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5075 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7784 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7067 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5317 




KRW


South Korean won


1 331,31 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9620 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,6925 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4183 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 170,62 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6728 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,588 




RUB


Russian rouble


72,4794 




THB


Thai baht


35,322 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4659 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4741 




INR


Indian rupee


78,6785 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-384/19: Action brought on 16 May 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Canary Islands, environmental risk prevention, flood, infringement of EU law, management planning








C_2019270EN.01001801.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/18






Action brought on 16 May 2019 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
(Case C-384/19)
(2019/C 270/20)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and E. Sanfrutos Cano, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) and (5) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2007/60/EC (1) as regards river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura, ES123 Lanzarote, ES124 Tenerife, ES125 La Palma, ES126 La Gomera and ES127 El Hierro;










—


declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2007/60/EC as regards river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura and ES125 La Palma;










—


order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

It is apparent the information provided by the Spanish authorities that Spain has not established, completed and published, by the 22 December 2015 deadline laid down in the Directive, flood risk management plans in respect of the river basin districts ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura, ES123 Lanzarote, ES124 Tenerife, ES125 La Palma, ES126 La Gomera and ES127 El Hierro. In addition, the Commission has not received a copy of those plans, as required by Article 15(1) of the Directive.
Furthermore, in three river basin districts — ES120 Gran Canaria, ES122 Fuerteventura and ES125 La Palma — the public information and consultation phase has not yet taken place or has not in any event been completed. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10(1) and (2) of Directive 2007/60/EC as regards those three river basin districts.


(1)  Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ 2007 L 288, p.27)
Case C-386/19 P: Appeal brought on 16 May 2019 by Hamas against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 March 2019 in Case T-289/15 Hamas v Council
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, economic sanctions, international sanctions, legal person, proof, right to justice, rights of the defence, terrorism, trade restriction








C_2019220EN.01002701.xml










1.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 220/27






Appeal brought on 16 May 2019 by Hamas against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 6 March 2019 in Case T-289/15 Hamas v Council
(Case C-386/19 P)
(2019/C 220/33)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Hamas (represented by: L. Glock, avocate)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment of 6 March 2019, Hamas v Council, T-289/15;










—


give final judgment in the matters that are the subject of the appeal;










—


order the Council to pay all the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The applicant relies on four grounds of appeal.
First, in holding that the facts set out in paragraph 15 of Annex A and paragraph 17 of Annex B to the statement of reasons for the acts of March 2015 were invoked independently by the Council, the General Court distorted the evidence before it, substituted its own grounds for those of the author of the contested acts, failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons for its decision and deprived the applicant of the ability to prepare its defence.
Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931 by accepting that a decision of an administrative authority had been taken by a competent authority within the meaning of that provision, even though it had never been subject to judicial review.
Thirdly, the General Court infringed Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/93, Article 296 TFEU, and the applicant’s rights of the defence and right to effective judicial protection by holding that the British decision was a condemnation decision and that the Council was therefore obliged to defer as far as possible to the assessment conducted by the authority that adopted it.
Fourthly, in holding that Hamas and Hamas IDQ were a single entity, the General Court infringed the rules on the burden of proof, allowed the Council to alter its grounds in the course of the proceedings, took account of evidence without checking its veracity, breached the audi alteram partem rule in relation to the facts, distorted the evidence before it and breached the principle of the independence of proceedings.
Joined Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Poland v Commission (State aid — Polish tax on the retail sector — Progressive tax levied on turnover — Decision to open the formal investigation procedure — Final decision classifying the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — Condition relating to selectivity)
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, VAT, control of State aid, national tax, retail trade, turnover








C_2019230EN.01002801.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/28






Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — Poland v Commission
(Joined Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17) (1)

(State aid - Polish tax on the retail sector - Progressive tax levied on turnover - Decision to open the formal investigation procedure - Final decision classifying the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - Condition relating to selectivity)
(2019/C 230/34)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, M. Rzotkiewicz and A. Kramarczyk-Szaładzińska, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Hungary (represented by: in Case T-836/16, M. Fehér, G. Koós and E. Tóth, and in Case T-624/17, M. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Re:

Applications based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment, first, of Commission Decision C(2016) 5596 final of 19 September 2016 on the State Aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) — Poland — Polish tax on the retail sector, opening the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of that measure and, secondly, Commission Decision (EU) 2018/160 of 30 June 2017 on the State aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector (OJ 2018 L 29, p.38), closing the procedure and according to which that measure constitutes State aid incompatible with the internal market which has been unlawfully implemented.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls Commission Decision C(2016) 5596 final of 19 September 2016 on the State Aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) — Poland — Polish tax on the retail sector;











2.



Annuls Commission Decision (EU) 2018/160 of 30 June 2017 on the State aid SA.44351 (2016/C) (ex 2016/NN) implemented by Poland for the tax on the retail sector;











3.



Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Poland in Cases T-836/16 and T-624/17;











4.



Orders Hungary to bear its own costs in Cases T-836/6 and T-624/17.







(1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.
Case T-354/18: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — KID-Systeme v EUIPO — Sky (SKYFi) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SKYFi — Earlier national and EU word marks SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of signs — Identity of goods and services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Suspension of the administrative procedure — Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) — Misuse of powers — Right to a fair trial — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-05-16
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electrical equipment, maintenance, recording medium, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law, vehicle








C_2019230EN.01004301.xml










8.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/43






Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2019 — KID-Systeme v EUIPO — Sky (SKYFi)
(Case T-354/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SKYFi - Earlier national and EU word marks SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of signs - Identity of goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 94 of Regulation 2017/1001 - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Suspension of the administrative procedure - Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625) - Misuse of powers - Right to a fair trial - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Oral proceedings before the Board of Appeal - Article 96 of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2019/C 230/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: KID-Systeme GmbH (Buxtehude, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis and H. O’Neill, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sky Ltd, formerly Sky plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Saliger, Solicitor, and P. Roberts QC)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 March 2018 (Case R 106/2017-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sky and KID-Systeme.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders KID-Systeme GmbH to pay the costs of the present proceedings.







(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.