do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-538/18: Order of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Fixed-term contract with a termination clause — Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition — Purely confirmatory measure — Period within which an action must be brought — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: discretionary power, equal treatment, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of a contract, termination of employment, work contract








C_2019255EN.01004301.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/43






Order of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — Dickmanns v EUIPO
(Case T-538/18) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary staff - Fixed-term contract with a termination clause - Clause terminating the contract in the event that the name of the agent is not included on the reserve list of a competition - Purely confirmatory measure - Period within which an action must be brought - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 255/55)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Sigrid Dickmanns (Gran Alacant, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 14 December 2017, and ‘if need be’ the decisions of 28 November 2013 and 4 June 2014 of EUIPO terminating the applicant’s employment contract as of 30 June 2018, and, second, compensation for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



Ms Sigrid Dickmanns shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by EUIPO.







(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9328 – Platinum Equity Group/Multi-Color Corporation) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 203/01
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: business administration, business management, economic concentration, labelling, merger control








C_2020203EN.01000101.xml










17.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 203/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9328 – Platinum Equity Group/Multi-Color Corporation)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 203/01)
On 11 June 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 32019M9328. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019195EN.01000701.xml










11.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/7






Euro exchange rates (1)

7 June 2019
(2019/C 195/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1273 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,27 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4680 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88675 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6562 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1191 




ISK


Iceland króna


139,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7963 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,642 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,53 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2714 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7216 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5862 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6173 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5061 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8396 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7016 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5407 




KRW


South Korean won


1 336,22 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9681 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7893 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4176 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 061,77 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6883 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,605 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,2914 




THB


Thai baht


35,341 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3719 




MXN


Mexican peso


22,2505 




INR


Indian rupee


78,3320 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-438/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2019 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Frontline Digital GmbH
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet site, consumer information, contract terms, digital distribution, termination of a contract








C_2019328EN.01001001.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2019 — Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V. v Frontline Digital GmbH
(Case C-438/19)
(2019/C 328/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant, appellant and respondent: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

Defendant, appellant and respondent: Frontline Digital GmbH

Questions referred







1.


In the case of distance contracts, is there a supply of digital content to the consumer within the meaning of Article 16(m) of Directive 2011/83/EU (1) where the consumer concludes with a trader a contract for participation in an internet-based ‘dating website’?










2.


If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
Does the commencement of the supply of digital content by the trader to the consumer lead to the loss of the consumer’s right of withdrawal, as provided for in Article 16(m) of the Directive, even in the case where, contrary to Article 8(7) of the Directive, the trader has not sent beforehand to the consumer confirmation of the contract concluded together with the information referred to in that latter provision?
If the consumer’s right of withdrawal continues in existence in that event:






 


Must the consumer be provided with information to that effect beforehand, in accordance with Article 6(1)(k) of the Directive?










(1)  Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 304, p. 64).
Case T-478/16: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — Frank v Commission (Research and technological development — Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme for the year 2016 — ERCEA decision rejecting a grant application as ineligible — Administrative appeal before the Commission — Implied rejection decision — Inadmissible in part — Express rejection decision — Right to effective judicial protection)
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, action programme, eligibility criteria, executive agency, innovation, right to justice, technological change








C_2019263EN.01003801.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/38






Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — Frank v Commission
(Case T-478/16) (1)

(Research and technological development - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) - Calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme for the year 2016 - ERCEA decision rejecting a grant application as ineligible - Administrative appeal before the Commission - Implied rejection decision - Inadmissible in part - Express rejection decision - Right to effective judicial protection)
(2019/C 263/42)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: S. Conrad, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, L. Mantl and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision of 17 June 2016 and, secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 16 September 2016, which respectively rejected, implicitly and explicitly, the applicant’s administrative appeal pursuant to Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders each party to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 475, 19.12.2016.
Case C-444/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by Kiku GmbH against the judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 April 2019 in Case T-765/17, Kiku GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: industrial property, pip fruit, plant variety right








C_2019363EN.01000402.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/4






Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by Kiku GmbH against the judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 11 April 2019 in Case T-765/17, Kiku GmbH v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
(Case C-444/19 P)
(2019/C 363/08)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: Kiku GmbH (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office, Sächsisches Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie
By order of 16 September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) did not allow the appeal to proceed and ordered the appellant to pay its own costs.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019195EN.01000801.xml










11.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 195/8






Euro exchange rates (1)

10 June 2019
(2019/C 195/06)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1301 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,78 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4682 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89248 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6455 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1200 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7808 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,626 




HUF


Hungarian forint


320,21 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2639 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7196 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5511 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6235 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5004 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8634 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7086 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5453 




KRW


South Korean won


1 339,72 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7993 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8365 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4163 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 098,27 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7052 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,869 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,1393 




THB


Thai baht


35,423 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3877 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,7522 




INR


Indian rupee


78,6445 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-350/19: Action brought on 11 June 2019 — Bontempi and Others v EUIPO — Sand Cph (WhiteSand)
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, leather, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019255EN.01005201.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/52






Action brought on 11 June 2019 — Bontempi and Others v EUIPO — Sand Cph (WhiteSand)
(Case T-350/19)
(2019/C 255/65)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Emanuela Bontempi (Montemarciano, Italy) and 6 others (represented by: S. Rizzo and O. Musco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sand Cph A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicants of the trade mark at issue: Applicants before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark WhiteSand — Application for registration No 16 416 596

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 April 2019 in Case R 1913/2018-2

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 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom (OJ L 13, 17.1.2014)
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: health control, health risk, ionising radiation, medical diagnosis, occupational safety, radiation protection, radiobiology








L_2019152EN.01012801.xml










11.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 152/128







Corrigendum to Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom of 5 December 2013 laying down basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation, and repealing Directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 13 of 17 January 2014
)


On page 41, title of Annex III:
for:


                        ‘Activity values defining high-activity sealed sources as referred to in point (43) of Article 4’,

read:


                        ‘Activity values defining high-activity sealed sources as referred to in point (41) of Article 4’.
Case C-447/19 P: Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by SA Close, Cegelec against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-259/15, Close and Cegelec v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, building, improvement of housing, right to justice, tendering, works contract








C_2019312EN.01000502.xml










16.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/5






Appeal brought on 11 June 2019 by SA Close, Cegelec against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 April 2019 in Case T-259/15, Close and Cegelec v Parliament
(Case C-447/19 P)
(2019/C 312/07)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellants: SA Close, Cegelec (represented by: J.-L. Teheux, J.-M. Rikkers, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The appellants claim that the Court should:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal;










—


consequently, grant the form of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly, annul the decision taken on 19 March 2015 by the Parliament awarding the public works contract in respect of the ‘Project to extend and modernise the Konrad Adenauer Building in Luxembourg’ lot 73 (energy unit), under reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-14-A04, to the consortium ENERGIE-KAD (formed of the companies MERSCH et SCHMITZ PRODUCTION SARL and ENERGOLUX SA) and, in turn, not selecting the appellants’ tender;










—


order the Parliament to pay the costs.





Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellants claim that the General Court failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons for the purposes of Article 296 TFEU, Article 113(2) of the financial regulation and Article 161(2) and (3) of the rules of application of the financial regulation.
The General Court also distorted the scope of the second plea in law raised at first instance, attributed incorrect scope to the concept of manifest error of assessment, the principle of sound administration and the obligations stemming from that principle, and made an error of assessment that led to distortion of the facts and evidence.
Lastly, the appellants submit that the judgment under appeal lacks an adequate statement of reasons, in so far as it in no way addresses certain arguments put forward by them.
Case C-439/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 11 June 2019 — B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: confidentiality, data protection, data-processing law, drivers, exchange of information, penalty, personal data, principle of legal certainty, traffic offence








C_2019280EN.01002502.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/25






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Satversmes tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 11 June 2019 — B v Latvijas Republikas Saeima
(Case C-439/19)
(2019/C 280/34)
Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Satversmes tiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: B

Defendant: Latvijas Republikas Saeima

Questions referred







1.


Must the expression ‘[p]rocessing of personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences or related security measures’, used in Article 10 of Regulation 2016/679, (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes the processing of information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences as provided for in the provision at issue?










2.


Irrespective of the answer to the first question, can the provisions of Regulation 2016/679, in particular the principle of ‘integrity and confidentiality’ referred to in Article 5(1)(f) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that they prohibit Member States from stipulating that information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences falls within the public domain and from allowing such data to be processed by being communicated?










3.


Must recitals 50 and 154 and Articles 5(1)(b) and 10 of Regulation 2016/679 and Article 1(2)(cc) of Directive 2003/98/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation of a Member State which allows information relating to penalty points recorded against drivers for motoring offences to be transmitted for the purposes of re-use?










4.


If any of the foregoing questions is answered in the affirmative, must the principle of the primacy of EU law and the principle of legal certainty be interpreted as meaning that it might be permissible to apply the provision at issue and maintain its legal effects until such time as the decision ultimately adopted by the Constitutional Court becomes final?






(1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90).
Case T-138/18: Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — De Esteban Alonso v Commission (Civil Service — Former officials — OLAF investigation — ‘Eurostat’ case — Forwarding to the national judicial authorities of information relating to matters liable to result in criminal proceedings — Failure to notify potentially concerned officials beforehand — Harm allegedly suffered on account of the conduct of OLAF and the Commission during the proceedings — Material, non-material and physical harm — Causal link)
Date: 2019-06-11
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Eurostat, indemnification, rights of the defence








C_2019263EN.01004401.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/44






Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2019 — De Esteban Alonso v Commission
(Case T-138/18) (1)

(Civil Service - Former officials - OLAF investigation - ‘Eurostat’ case - Forwarding to the national judicial authorities of information relating to matters liable to result in criminal proceedings - Failure to notify potentially concerned officials beforehand - Harm allegedly suffered on account of the conduct of OLAF and the Commission during the proceedings - Material, non-material and physical harm - Causal link)
(2019/C 263/49)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (Saint-Martin-de-Seignanx, France) (represented by: C. Huglo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Striani and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for compensation for the material, non-material and physical harm which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Fernando De Esteban Alonso EUR 62 000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr De Esteban Alonso.







(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.