do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-433/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Ellmes Property Services Limited v SP
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, joint ownership, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, law of obligations, real property








C_2019357EN.01000403.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Ellmes Property Services Limited v SP
(Case C-433/19)
(2019/C 357/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ellmes Property Services Limited

Defendant: SP

Questions referred







1.


Is the first alternative in the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1)(‘Brussels Ia Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that actions brought by a co-owner seeking to prohibit another co-owner from carrying out changes to his property subject to co-ownership, in particular to its designated use, arbitrarily and without the consent of the other co-owners, concern the assertion of a right in rem?










2.


If the first question should be answered in the negative:
Is Article 7(1)(a) of the Brussels Ia Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the actions referred to in paragraph 1 concern contractual obligations to be performed at the location of the property?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Case T-449/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Ortlieb Sportartikel v EUIPO (Representation of an octagon) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark representing an octagon — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019263EN.01004801.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/48






Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Ortlieb Sportartikel v EUIPO (Representation of an octagon)
(Case T-449/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark representing an octagon - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 263/55)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Ortlieb Sportartikel GmbH (Heilsbronn, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and K. Schmidt-Hern, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2018 (Case R 1634/2017-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing an octagon as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Ortlieb Sportartikel GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.
Council Decision (EU) 2019/963 of 6 June 2019 appointing one alternate member of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for France
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, France, appointment of members, decision-making body (EU)








L_2019156EN.01000301.xml










13.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 156/3








            COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2019/963
of 6 June 2019
         
appointing one alternate member of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for France


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,


Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2019/126 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 January 2019 establishing the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2062/94 (1), and in particular Article 4 thereof,


Having regard to the lists of candidates submitted to the Council by the Governments of the Member States and by the employees' and the employers' organisations,


Having regard to the lists of members and alternate members of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work,

Whereas:







(1)


By its Decision of 9 April 2019 (2), the Council appointed the members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2023.












(2)


The employers' organisation BusinessEurope has submitted a nomination for one post to be filled for France,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
The following is hereby appointed alternate member of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work for the period ending on 31 March 2023:
REPRESENTATIVES OF EMPLOYERS' ORGANISATIONS







Country


Member


Alternate member




France


 


Mr Franck GAMBELLI






Article 2
The Council shall appoint the members and alternate members not yet nominated at a later date.


Article 3
This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.




Done at Luxembourg, 6 June 2019.


For the Council


The President

A. BIRCHALL
            





(1)  
            OJ L 30, 31.1.2019, p. 58.

(2)  Council Decision of 9 April 2019 appointing the members and alternate members of the Management Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) (OJ C 135, 11.4.2019, p 7).
Case T-540/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement No 20948 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, Syria, claim, electricity supply, energy grid, interest, international loan








C_2019255EN.01003201.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/32






Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-540/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement No 20948 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
(2019/C 255/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and by D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Electricity Distribution Project Loan Agreement No 20948, plus default interest

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 52 657 141,77;











2.



Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, calculated in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Electricity Distribution Project loan agreement No 20948, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 5 February 2001 and amended by the letters of 3 October 2003, 28 February 2006, 9 May and 8 October 2007, from 9 August 2017 up to the date that payment is made;











3.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











4.



Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Case C-58/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de Paix du canton de Visé — Belgium) — Michel Schyns v Belfius Banque SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Pre-contractual obligations — Article 5(6) — Obligation on the creditor to seek to establish the credit most suitable — Article 8(1) — Obligation on the creditor to refrain from concluding the loan agreement if there are doubts over the creditworthiness of the consumer — Obligation on the creditor to assess the expediency of the credit)
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, financial situation








C_2019263EN.01001201.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/12






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Justice de Paix du canton de Visé — Belgium) — Michel Schyns v Belfius Banque SA
(Case C-58/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 2008/48/EC - Pre-contractual obligations - Article 5(6) - Obligation on the creditor to seek to establish the credit most suitable - Article 8(1) - Obligation on the creditor to refrain from concluding the loan agreement if there are doubts over the creditworthiness of the consumer - Obligation on the creditor to assess the expediency of the credit)
(2019/C 263/14)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Justice de Paix du canton de Visé

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Michel Schyns

Defendant: Belfius Banque SA

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 5(6) of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges creditors or credit intermediaries to seek to establish, within the framework of the credit agreements which they usually offer, the type and the amount of credit most suitable, taking into account the consumer’s financial situation at the time the credit agreement is concluded and the purpose of the credit.










2.


Article 5(6) and Article 8(1) of Directive 2008/48 must be interpreted as not precluding a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which obliges the creditor to refrain from concluding the credit agreement if he cannot reasonably take the view, following the check of the consumer’s creditworthiness, that the consumer will be able to fulfil the obligations arising from the proposed agreement.






(1)  OJ C 166. 14.5.2018.
Case T-590/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, interest, international loan, water supply








C_2019280EN.01003801.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/38






Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-590/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
(2019/C 280/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented by: initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Water Supply Sweida Region Loan Agreement No 80212, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB), the sum of EUR 726 942,81;











2.



Declares that that sum is to bear default interest, on the principle amounts and on the contractual interest, at the annual rate of 3.5%, from 25 August 2017 until the date that payment is made;











3.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











4.



Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Case T-43/18: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (VW Bus T 5 vehicle) (Community designs — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing the VW Bus T 5 vehicle — Earlier Community design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Informed user — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, light-duty vehicle








C_2019255EN.01003501.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/35






Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — Rietze v EUIPO — Volkswagen (VW Bus T 5 vehicle)
(Case T-43/18) (1)

(Community designs - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing the VW Bus T 5 vehicle - Earlier Community design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Informed user - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
(2019/C 255/45)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Rietze GmbH & Co. KG (Altdorf, Germany) (represented by: M. Krogmann, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Klawitter, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 November 2017 (Case R 1204/2016-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Rietze and Volkswagen.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Rietze GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 104, 19.3.2018.
Case T-539/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Al Thawra Loan Agreement No 16405 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, claim, engineering structure, interest, international loan, irrigation








C_2019255EN.01003102.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/31






Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 –EIB v Syria
(Case T-539/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Al Thawra Loan Agreement No 16405 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
(2019/C 255/40)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and by D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Al Thawra Loan Agreement No 16405, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sums of EUR 404 792,06, 954 331,07 pounds sterling (GBP), 29 130 433,00 Japanese yen (JPY) and 1 498 184,58 US dollars (USD).











2.



Declares that those sums are to bear default interest at an annual rate of 4.52% on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 up to the date that payment is made.











3.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder.











4.



Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.
Case C-445/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v TV 2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid, indemnification, interest, legality, public sector, reimbursement of aid, sale, service








C_2019270EN.01002402.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 6 June 2019 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v TV 2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark
(Case C-445/19)
(2019/C 270/28)
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Østre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

Defendants: TV 2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark

Questions referred







1.


Does the obligation for a national court to order an aid recipient to pay illegality interest (see the judgment in CELF (1)) apply also in a situation such as that in the present case, in which the unlawful State aid constituted public service compensation which was subsequently found to be compatible with the internal market under Article 106(2) TFEU and in which approval was granted on the basis of an assessment of the entire public service undertaking’s overall financial situation, including its capitalisation?










2.


Does the obligation for a national court to order an aid recipient to pay illegality interest (see the judgment in CELF) apply also in respect of amounts which, in circumstances such as those of the present case, are transferred from the aid recipient to affiliated undertakings pursuant to a public-law obligation but which are categorised by a final Commission decision as constituting an advantage for the aid recipient within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU?










3.


Does the obligation for a national court to order an aid recipient to pay illegality interest (see the judgment in CELF) apply also in respect of State aid which the aid recipient, in circumstances such as those of the present case, received from a publicly-controlled undertaking, given that the latter’s resources are derived partly from sales of the aid recipient’s services?






(1)  Judgment of 12 February 2008 (Case C-199/06, CELF and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication, EU:C:2008:79).
Case C-436/19 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2019 by Abaco Energy SA and Others against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2019 in Case T-186/18, Abaco Energy and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, electrical energy, renewable energy








C_2020297EN.01002001.xml










7.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 297/20






Appeal brought on 6 June 2019 by Abaco Energy SA and Others against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2019 in Case T-186/18, Abaco Energy and Others v Commission
(Case C-436/19 P)
(2020/C 297/26)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellants: Abaco Energy SA and Others (represented by: P. Holtrop, abogado)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
By order of 21 July 2020, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) held that the appeal is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded and that the appellants shall bear their own costs.
Case T-541/17: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria (Arbitration clause — Electricity Transmission Project Loan Agreement No 20868 — Non-performance of the agreement — Repayment of the sums advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)
Date: 2019-06-06
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EIB loan, Syria, claim, electricity supply, energy grid, interest, international loan








C_2019255EN.01003301.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/33






Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2019 — EIB v Syria
(Case T-541/17) (1)

(Arbitration clause - Electricity Transmission Project Loan Agreement No 20868 - Non-performance of the agreement - Repayment of the sums advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default)
(2019/C 255/42)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: European Investment Bank (represented initially by P. Chamberlain, T. Gilliams, F. Oxangoiti Briones and J. Shirran, and subsequently by F. Oxangoiti Briones, J. Klein and J. Shirran, acting as Agents, and D. Arts, lawyer, and T. Cusworth, Solicitor)

Defendant: Syrian Arab Republic

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, seeking an order that the Syrian Arab Republic repay sums due under Electricity Transmission Project Loan Agreement No 20868, plus default interest.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to repay the European Union, represented by the European Investment Bank (EIB) the sums of EUR 38 934 400,51 and 3 383 971,66 Swiss francs (CHF);











2.



Declares that those sums are to bear default interest, in accordance with the method laid down in Article 3.02 of Electricity Transmission Project loan agreement No 20868, entered into by the EIB and the Syrian Arab Republic on 14 December 2000 and amended on 20 December 2004, on the principal amounts and on the contractual interest, from 9 August 2017 up to the date that payment is made;











3.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











4.



Orders the Syrian Arab Republic to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 369, 30.10.2017.