do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-702/18: Order of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Durand and Others v Parliament (Actions for failure to act and for annulment — Agricultural policy — Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 — Animal welfare — Request by Members of the European Parliament to set up an inquiry committee — Defined position of the Parliament — Act not open to challenge — Informative act — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: agricultural policy, animal welfare, committee of inquiry, conference of presidents, parliamentary sitting, transport of animals








C_2019255EN.01004302.xml










29.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 255/43






Order of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — Durand and Others v Parliament
(Case T-702/18) (1)

(Actions for failure to act and for annulment - Agricultural policy - Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 - Animal welfare - Request by Members of the European Parliament to set up an inquiry committee - Defined position of the Parliament - Act not open to challenge - Informative act - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 255/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Pascal Durand (Paris, France) and the seven other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the order (represented by: O. Brouwer and E. Raedts, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action, principally, pursuant to Article 265 TFEU seeking a declaration that the Parliament, by decision taken by the Conference of Presidents of the Parliament, unlawfully failed to act on a request of 17 July 2018 seeking the setting up of an inquiry committee and, in the alternative, seeking the annulment, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, of the decision contained in the letter of the President of the Parliament of 21 September 2018.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



Mr Pascal Durand and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex shall pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.
Case C-705/17: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Patent- och registreringsverket v Mats Hansson (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 4(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Overall impression — Earlier trade mark registered with a disclaimer — Effects of such a disclaimer on the extent of protection of the earlier trade mark)
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019263EN.01000801.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/8






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt — Sweden) — Patent- och registreringsverket v Mats Hansson
(Case C-705/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 4(1)(b) - Likelihood of confusion - Overall impression - Earlier trade mark registered with a disclaimer - Effects of such a disclaimer on the extent of protection of the earlier trade mark)
(2019/C 263/09)
Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Svea hovrätt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Patent- och registreringsverket

Defendant: Mats Hansson

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding national legislation making provision for a disclaimer whose effect would be to exclude an element of a complex trade mark, referred to in that disclaimer, from the global analysis of the relevant factors for showing the existence of a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of that provision, or to attribute to such an element, in advance and permanently, limited importance in that analysis.


(1)  OJ C 83, 5.3.2018.
Case T-583/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst v EUIPO — IOS Finance EFC (IOS FINANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark IOS FINANCE — Earlier national figurative mark EOS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, business administration, business management, financial services, real estate business, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019263EN.01004101.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/41






Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst v EUIPO — IOS Finance EFC (IOS FINANCE)
(Case T-583/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark IOS FINANCE - Earlier national figurative mark EOS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 263/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Sorg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: IOS Finance EFC, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2017 (Case R 2262/2016-2), relating to opposition proceedings between EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst and IOS Finance EFC.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.
Case C-43/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — Compagnie d'entreprises CFE SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Order — Designation of a special area of conservation in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC — Establishment of conservation objectives and certain preventive measures — Notion of ‘plans and programmes’ — Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment)
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental risk prevention, protected area








C_2019263EN.01001101.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/11






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — Compagnie d'entreprises CFE SA v Région de Bruxelles-Capitale
(Case C-43/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Order - Designation of a special area of conservation in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC - Establishment of conservation objectives and certain preventive measures - Notion of ‘plans and programmes’ - Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment)
(2019/C 263/13)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Compagnie d'entreprises CFE SA

Defendant: Région de Bruxelles-Capitale

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to the verifications to be made by the referring court, an order such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a Member State designates a special area of conservation (SAC) and establishes conservation objectives as well as certain preventive measures, does not fall within ‘plans and programmes’ for which an assessment of the effects on the environment is obligatory.


(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9378 — Apax Partners/GNB) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: consultancy, economic concentration, insurance company, investment, life assurance, merger control, provision of services








C_2019267EN.01000301.xml










9.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/3






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9378 — Apax Partners/GNB)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 267/05)
On 12 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 32019M9378. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-356/19: Action brought on 12 June 2019 — Polisario Front v Council
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Morocco, Western Sahara, agreement (EU), fishing agreement, fishing rights, powers of the institutions (EU), protocol to an agreement, sea fishing, self-determination, sustainable fisheries








C_2019270EN.01003501.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/35






Action brought on 12 June 2019 — Polisario Front v Council
(Case T-356/19)
(2019/C 270/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro (Polisario Front) (represented by: G. Devers, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare its action for annulment admissible;










—


annul the contested regulation;










—


order the Council to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action brought against Council Regulation (EU) 2019/440 of 29 November 2018 on the allocation of fishing opportunities under the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Implementation Protocol thereto (OJ 2019 L 77, p.1), the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging lack of legal basis of that regulation on account of the illegality of Decision 2019/441.
That plea is divided into eleven parts which are essentially identical to the eleven pleas in Case T-344/19, Polisario Front v Council.
Case C-149/19: Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava V — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against R.B.
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal proceedings, detention before trial, drug traffic, fundamental rights, imprisonment, principle of proportionality, right to information, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2019288EN.01003903.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/39






Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava V — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against R.B.
(Case C-149/19) (1)

(2019/C 288/51)
Language of the case: Slovak
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.
Case T-167/17: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — RV v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Leave in the interests of the service — Automatic retirement — Measure not open to challenge — Partial inadmissibility — Scope of the law — Court acting of its own motion — Literal, contextual and teleological interpretation)
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, early retirement, interpretation of the law, special leave








C_2019263EN.01003901.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/39






Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2019 — RV v Commission
(Case T-167/17) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Leave in the interests of the service - Automatic retirement - Measure not open to challenge - Partial inadmissibility - Scope of the law - Court acting of its own motion - Literal, contextual and teleological interpretation)
(2019/C 263/43)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: RV (represented by: initially, J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, subsequently, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): European Parliament (represented by: initially, J. Steele and D. Nessaf, subsequently, J. Steele and M. Rantala, and finally, J. Steele and C. González Argüelles, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 21 December 2016 to place the applicant on leave in the interests of the service pursuant to Article 42c of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and simultaneously to retire the applicant automatically pursuant to the fifth paragraph thereof.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 21 December 2016 to place RV on leave in the interests of the service and simultaneously to retire RV automatically;











2.



Dismisses the remainder of the action;











3.



Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by RV, including those incidental to the proceedings for interim measures;











4.



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







(1)  OJ C 144 of 8.5.2017.
Case C-442/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 12 June 2019 — Stichting Brein v News-Service Europe BV
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, copyright, electronic commerce, freedom to provide services, information industry, information society, information storage, literary and artistic property








C_2019357EN.01000501.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 12 June 2019 — Stichting Brein v News-Service Europe BV
(Case C-442/19)
(2019/C 357/08)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Stichting Brein

Respondent: News-Service Europe BV

Questions referred







1.


Has an operator of a platform for Usenet services (as NSE has been) […] made a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p.10; ‘the Copyright Directive’)?










2.


If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative (and there is thus a communication to the public):
Does the finding that the operator of a platform for Usenet services has made a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive preclude the application of Article 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1; ‘Directive on electronic commerce’)?










3.


If the answer to question 1 or 2 is in the negative (and recourse to the exemption under Article 14(1) of the Directive on electronic commerce is therefore possible in principle):
Has the operator of a platform for Usenet services, who provides services […], played an active role that would in some other way preclude reliance on Article 14(1) of the Directive on electronic commerce?










4.


Can the operator of a platform for Usenet services who has made a communication to the public and who is entitled to rely on Article 14(1) of the Directive on electronic commerce be prohibited from continuing the infringement, or can an injunction be imposed on it that goes beyond what is stated in Article 14(3) of the Directive on electronic commerce, or is that contrary to Article 15(1) of the Directive on electronic commerce?
Case C-452/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — YV v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, legal expenses, mortgage, unfair terms of contract








C_2019328EN.01001301.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 12 June 2019 — YV v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
(Case C-452/19)
(2019/C 328/14)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: YV

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, the following ruling is compliant with EU law in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law: the ruling by the Supreme Court in judgments 44 to 49 of 23 January 2019, which establishes the unambiguous criterion that a term in a consumer mortgage loan agreement that has not been negotiated and that stipulates that all the costs of arranging the mortgage are to be borne by the borrower is unfair, and which apportions the various expenses that are involved in the unfair term found to be void between the bank that imposed the term and the borrower, in order to limit repayments of amounts wrongly paid under national legislation.
And whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law, it is compliant with EU law for the Supreme Court to adopt an inclusive interpretation of a term that is void for unfairness if the term can be severed and its effects abolished without affecting the continued existence of the mortgage loan agreement.










2.


Also, whether, as regards Article 394 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure), which establishes the principle that the costs of proceedings are to be borne by the unsuccessful party, it can be held that where an unfair expenses clause is declared void but the effects of voiding the term are limited to apportioning the expenses in question, it is contrary to the EU legal principles of effectiveness and the non-binding nature of unfair terms to conclude that a claim has been upheld in part, and whether such a conclusion could be interpreted as producing an inverse deterrent effect, which thus fails to protect the legitimate interests of consumers and users.






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019196EN.01000301.xml










12.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 196/3







Euro exchange rates (1)


            11 June 2019
         
(2019/C 196/04)


1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1320 




JPY


Japanese yen


123,09 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4687 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89085 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6828 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1233 




ISK


Iceland króna


140,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7700 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,640 




HUF


Hungarian forint


320,50 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2678 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7252 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5752 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6273 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5002 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8700 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7206 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5446 




KRW


South Korean won


1 337,48 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7140 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8243 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4140 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 116,85 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7123 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,810 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,0227 




THB


Thai baht


35,403 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3893 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6783 




INR


Indian rupee


78,6155 






(1)  
            Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-321/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Decree — Establishment of conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC — Definition of ‘plans and programmes’ — Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment)
Date: 2019-06-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: decree, environmental impact, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life








C_2019263EN.01001701.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/17






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Terre wallonne ASBL v Région wallonne
(Case C-321/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Decree - Establishment of conservation objectives for the Natura 2000 network, in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC - Definition of ‘plans and programmes’ - Obligation to undertake an environmental assessment)
(2019/C 263/21)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Terre wallonne ASBL

Defendant: Région wallonne

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, must be interpreted as meaning that a decree, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which a body of a Member State establishes, at regional level for its Natura 2000 network, conservation objectives which have an indicative value, whereas the conservation objectives at site level have a statutory value, is not one of the ‘plans and programmes’, within the meaning of that directive, for which an environmental impact assessment is mandatory.


(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.