do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-336/19: Action brought on 31 May 2019 — BZ v Commission
Date: 2019-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: contract staff, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, equal treatment, indemnification, principle of proportionality, probationary period, rights of the defence, servant (EU)








C_2019255EN.01004801.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/48






Action brought on 31 May 2019 — BZ v Commission
(Case T-336/19)
(2019/C 255/61)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: BZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


Annul the European Commission’s decision of 25 July 2018 to dismiss the applicant in response to a report on the probationary period before the end of that period;










—


Order the Commission to pay the applicant the following separate sums by way of damages:






—


EUR 5 000 in respect of non-material harm caused by the dismissal decision;










—


EUR 5 000 in respect of damage to reputation caused by the dismissal decision;










—


EUR 10 000 in respect of material harm caused by the adverse effects on the applicant’s state of health following her dismissal;










—


EUR 58 900 in respect of material harm linked to the loss of income as a result of her unlawful dismissal;














—


Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, under Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.





Pleas in law and main arguments

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






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement of the procedural guarantees in respect of administrative and disciplinary investigations, and infringement of the rights of the defence and of the presumption of innocence.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 84(1) and (3) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and of the rights connected with the probationary period and a consequent manifest error of assessment by the administration.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 84(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and of the principle of proportionality:










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.










5.


Fifth plea in law, concerning a claim for special damages in response to the abovementioned irregularities.
Case T-329/19: Action brought on 31 May 2019 — 12seasons v EUIPO — Société Immobilière et Mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)
Date: 2019-05-31
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019246EN.01004101.xml










22.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 246/41






Action brought on 31 May 2019 — 12seasons v EUIPO — Société Immobilière et Mobilière de Montagny (BE EDGY BERLIN)
(Case T-329/19)
(2019/C 246/43)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: 12seasons GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Société Immobilière et Mobilière de Montagny (Roanne, France)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark BE EDGY BERLIN — EU trade mark No 15 981 921

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 March 2019 in Case R 1522/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 60(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-423/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Norbert Häring v Hessischer Rundfunk
Date: 2019-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competence, euro, monetary policy, paper money, participating country (euro area), payment, public authorities








C_2019288EN.01002802.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Norbert Häring v Hessischer Rundfunk
(Case C-423/19)
(2019/C 288/35)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Norbert Häring

Defendant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hessischer Rundfunk

Questions referred







1.


Does the exclusive competence that the European Union, pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) TFEU, enjoys in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro preclude a legal act of one of those Member States that provides for an obligation on the part of public authorities of the Member State to accept euro banknotes in the fulfilment of statutorily imposed payment obligations?










2.


Does the status as legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro, as established in the third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of Article 16(1) of Protocol (No 4) on the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (1) contain a prohibition precluding public authorities of a Member State from refusing fulfilment of a statutorily imposed payment obligation in such banknotes, or does EU law leave room for provisions that exclude payment in euro banknotes for certain statutorily imposed payment obligations?










3.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative:
Can a legal act of a Member State whose currency is the euro which is adopted in the context of the European Union’s exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy be applied to the extent to which, and for so long as, the European Union has not made use of its competence?






(1)  OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1.
Case C-422/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Johannes Dietrich v Hessischer Rundfunk
Date: 2019-05-31
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU competence, euro, monetary policy, paper money, participating country (euro area), payment, public authorities








C_2019288EN.01002801.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/28






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 31 May 2019 — Johannes Dietrich v Hessischer Rundfunk
(Case C-422/19)
(2019/C 288/34)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant, appellant and appellant on a point of law: Johannes Dietrich

Defendant, respondent and respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Hessischer Rundfunk

Questions referred







1.


Does the exclusive competence that the European Union, pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(c) TFEU, enjoys in the area of monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro preclude a legal act of one of those Member States that provides for an obligation on the part of public authorities of the Member State to accept euro banknotes in the fulfilment of statutorily imposed payment obligations?










2.


Does the status as legal tender of banknotes denominated in euro, as established in the third sentence of Article 128(1) TFEU, the third sentence of Article 16(1) of Protocol (No 4) on the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank and the second sentence of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EC) No 974/98 of 3 May 1998 on the introduction of the euro (1) contain a prohibition precluding public authorities of a Member State from refusing fulfilment of a statutorily imposed payment obligation in such banknotes, or does EU law leave room for provisions that exclude payment in euro banknotes for certain statutorily imposed payment obligations?










3.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative and the second question is answered in the negative:
Can a legal act of a Member State whose currency is the euro which is adopted in the context of the European Union’s exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy be applied to the extent to which, and for so long as, the European Union has not made use of its competence?






(1)  OJ 1998 L 139, p. 1.