do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-22/18: Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Citizenship of the Union — Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU — Rules of a sports association — Participation in the national championship of a Member State by an amateur athlete holding the nationality of another Member State — Different treatment on the basis of nationality — Restriction on free movement)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, discrimination on the basis of nationality, freedom of movement, residence, sporting event, sports body








C_2019263EN.01001001.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/10






Judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi v Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V.
(Case C-22/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Citizenship of the Union - Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU - Rules of a sports association - Participation in the national championship of a Member State by an amateur athlete holding the nationality of another Member State - Different treatment on the basis of nationality - Restriction on free movement)
(2019/C 263/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Darmstadt

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: TopFit e.V., Daniele Biffi

Defendant: Deutscher Leichtathletikverband e.V.

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 18, 21 and 165 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding rules of a national sports association, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under which an EU citizen, who is a national of another Member State and who has resided for a number of years in the territory of the Member State where that association, in which he runs in the senior category and in an amateur capacity, is established, cannot participate in the national championships in those disciplines in the same way as nationals can, or can participate in them only ‘outside classification’ or ‘without classification’, without being able to progress to the final and without being eligible to be awarded the title of national champion, unless those rules are justified by objective considerations which are proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.


(1)  OJ C 123, 9.4.2018.
Case C-317/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro) — Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Concept of ‘worker’ — Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: labour law, municipality, transfer of businesses, wage earner, work contract








C_2019263EN.01001602.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/16






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro) — Cátia Correia Moreira v Município de Portimão
(Case C-317/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Concept of ‘worker’ - Substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employee)
(2019/C 263/20)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Faro

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Cátia Correia Moreira

Defendant: Município de Portimão

Operative part of the judgment







1.


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 Article 2(1)(d), must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has entered into a contract for a position of trust, within the meaning of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, with the transferor may be regarded as an ‘employee’ and thus benefit from the protection which that directive affords, provided, however, that that person is protected as an employee by that legislation and has a contract of employment at the date of transfer, which is a matter for the referring court to determine.










2.


Directive 2001/23, read in conjunction with Article 4(2) TEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation which provides that, in the event of a transfer within the meaning of that directive and where the transferee is a municipality, the employees concerned must, first, undergo a public competitive selection procedure and, secondly, have a new relationship with the transferee.






(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Case T-366/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Pet King Brands v EUIPO — Virbac (SUIMOX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark SUIMOX — Earlier EU word mark ZYMOX — Obligation to state reasons — Notification of a decision of the Board of Appeal — Good faith and diligence on the part of the addressee — Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, veterinary medicinal product








C_2019288EN.01005001.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/50






Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Pet King Brands v EUIPO — Virbac (SUIMOX)
(Case T-366/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark SUIMOX - Earlier EU word mark ZYMOX - Obligation to state reasons - Notification of a decision of the Board of Appeal - Good faith and diligence on the part of the addressee - Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2019/C 288/63)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Pet King Brands, Inc (Bartlett, Illinois, United States) (represented by: T. Schmidpeter and S. Bauer, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Virbac SA (Carros, France) (represented by D.-I. Tayer, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1835/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Pet King Brands and Virbac.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 21 March 2018 (Case R 1835/2017-5) in so far as it concerns ‘veterinary preparations; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’, ‘veterinary preparations and animal health care products, including antibiotics for animals; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’ and ‘preparations for destroying vermin; the aforesaid goods not including ear drops for animals’;











2.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











3.



Orders each party to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.
Case C-420/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst (Request for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 10 — Taxable person — Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ — Definition — Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, co-determination, economic activity, foundation, remuneration of work, taxpayer








C_2019263EN.01001901.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/19






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — IO v Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst
(Case C-420/18) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 10 - Taxable person - Economic activity carried out ‘independently’ - Definition - Activity as a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation)
(2019/C 263/23)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof ’s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IO

Defendant: Inspecteur van de rijksbelastingdienst

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 9 and 10 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a member of the Supervisory Board of a foundation, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, who, although he is not bound to the governing body of that foundation by any employer-employee relationship or to the Supervisory Board of that foundation by such a relationship in respect of the performance of his role as a member of that board, does not act in his name, on his own behalf or under his own responsibility, but on behalf of and under the responsibility of that Supervisory Board and does not bear the economic risk arising from his activities, since he receives a fixed remuneration which is not dependent on his participation in meetings or hours actually worked, does not carry out an economic activity independently.


(1)  OJ C 319, 10.9.2018.
Case T-357/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of EU figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ — Earlier national figurative mark clínica LALUZ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, furniture industry, hairdressing and beauty care, health care, medical centre, medical institution, public hygiene, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019263EN.01004601.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/46






Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Luz Saúde v EUIPO — Clínica La Luz (HOSPITAL DA LUZ)
(Case T-357/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of EU figurative mark HOSPITAL DA LUZ - Earlier national figurative mark clínica LALUZ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 263/52)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Luz Saúde, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio, P. Guerra e Andrade, M. Barros Silva and G. Moreira Rato, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, I. Ribeiro da Cunha and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Clínica La Luz, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2018 (Case R 2084/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Clínica La Luz and Luz Saúde.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Luz Saúde, SA to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Case C-449/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2019 — WEG Tevesstraße v Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, heating, national law, real property, supply, tax exemption








C_2019348EN.01000201.xml










14.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/2






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2019 — WEG Tevesstraße v Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen
(Case C-449/19)
(2019/C 348/02)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WEG Tevesstraße

Defendant: Finanzamt Villingen-Schwenningen

Question referred

Are the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the supply of heat by associations of residential property owners to those owners is exempt from value added tax?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-299/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament (Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — General contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels — Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and award of the contract to other tenderers — Abnormally low tender — Action for annulment — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Belgium, Brussels region, admissibility, award of contract, building industry, public building, tendering, works contract








C_2019280EN.01004002.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/40






Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Strabag Belgium v Parliament
(Case T-299/18) (1)

(Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - General contractor works in the European Parliament buildings in Brussels - Rejection of the bid of one tenderer and award of the contract to other tenderers - Abnormally low tender - Action for annulment - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
(2019/C 280/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Strabag Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented initially by: M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Lahbib, and subsequently by M. Schoups, K. Lemmens and M. Thomas, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller, Z. Nagy and D. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the Parliament decision of 19 April 2018 to maintain in force its decision of 24 November 2017 rejecting the applicant’s tender and awarding to five tenderers a framework contract involving general contractor works for Parliament buildings in Brussels (call for tenders 06D 20/2017/M036) and, secondly, of the addendum to the Parliament’s tender assessment report of 26 March 2018.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Strabag Belgium to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.







(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Case T-244/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Synergy Hellas v Commission (Research and technological development — Financial regulation — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — J-Web grant agreement — Enforceable decision ordering recovery — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU aid, Framework Programme for Research and Development, interest, principle of proportionality, research and development, technological change








C_2019280EN.01004001.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/40






Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — Synergy Hellas v Commission
(Case T-244/18) (1)

(Research and technological development - Financial regulation - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - J-Web grant agreement - Enforceable decision ordering recovery - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
(2019/C 280/55)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Damis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A Katsimerou and A. Kyratsou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2018) 1115 final of 19 February 2018 on the recovery of the sum of EUR 76 282,08, together with interest, from the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis to pay the costs, including those related to the interlocutory proceedings.







(1)  OJ C 231, 2.7.2018.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019197EN.01000101.xml










13.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 197/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

12 June 2019
(2019/C 197/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1323 




JPY


Japanese yen


122,72 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4678 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88805 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6800 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1252 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,7820 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,614 




HUF


Hungarian forint


321,43 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2608 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7250 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5550 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6292 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5059 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8570 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7206 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5445 




KRW


South Korean won


1 337,81 




ZAR


South African rand


16,7129 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8346 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4130 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 125,56 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7075 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,815 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,3013 




THB


Thai baht


35,379 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3661 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6615 




INR


Indian rupee


78,4910 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-193/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 2(c) — Concept of ‘electronic communications service’ — Conveyance of signals — Web-based email service — Gmail service)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Internet, data protection, electronic mail, freedom to provide services, personal data, postal and telecommunications services, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, transmission network








C_2019263EN.01001401.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/14






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Google LLC v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-193/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘electronic communications service’ - Conveyance of signals - Web-based email service - Gmail service)
(2019/C 263/17)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Google LLC

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a web-based email service which does not itself provide internet access, such as the Gmail service provided by Google LLC, does not consist wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks and therefore does not constitute an ‘electronic communications service’ within the meaning of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 211, 18.6.2018.
Case T-75/18: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — MPM-Quality v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 — Genuine use of the mark — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-06-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019263EN.01004301.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/43






Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2019 — MPM-Quality v EUIPO — Elton Hodinářská (MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949)
(Case T-75/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark MANUFACTURE PRIM 1949 - Genuine use of the mark - Obligation to state reasons)
(2019/C 263/48)
Language of the case: Czech

Parties


Applicant: MPM-Quality v.o.s. (Frýdek-Místek, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Kyjovský, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Elton Hodinářská a.s. (Nové Město nad Metují, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Matoušek, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 December 2017 (Case R 556/2017-4) relating to revocation proceedings between MPM-QUALITY and ELTON hodinářská.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders MPM-QUALITY v.o.s. to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);











3.



Orders ELTON hodinářská, a.s. to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 122, 26.3.2018.