do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-389/18: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2019 — Nonnemacher v EUIPO — Ingram (WKU) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark WKU — Earlier EU word marks WKA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — No limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Article 61(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sport, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01005101.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/51






Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2019 — Nonnemacher v EUIPO — Ingram (WKU)
(Case T-389/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark WKU - Earlier EU word marks WKA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - No limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Article 61(1) of Regulation 2017/1001)
(2019/C 305/61)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Klaus Nonnemacher (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: C. Zierhut, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Paul Ingram (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Haberl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 April 2018 (Case R 399/2017-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Ingram and Mr Nonnemacher.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Mr Klaus Nonnemacher to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Case C-72/18: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Pamplona — Spain) — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4(1) — Principle of non-discrimination — Public sector education — National provision granting particular additional remuneration only to teachers employed for an indefinite duration as established public officials — Exclusion of teachers employed under a fixed-term contract governed by public law — Concept of ‘objective grounds’ - Characteristics inherent in the status of established public official)
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: BusinessEurope, European Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation, European Trade Union Confederation, equal treatment, framework agreement, full-time employment, public education, remuneration of work, seniority, teacher, temporary employment








C_2019270EN.01001001.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/10






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Pamplona — Spain) — Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui v Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra
(Case C-72/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4(1) - Principle of non-discrimination - Public sector education - National provision granting particular additional remuneration only to teachers employed for an indefinite duration as established public officials - Exclusion of teachers employed under a fixed-term contract governed by public law - Concept of ‘objective grounds’ - Characteristics inherent in the status of established public official)
(2019/C 270/11)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de Pamplona

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Daniel Ustariz Aróstegui

Defendant: Departamento de Educación del Gobierno de Navarra

Operative part of the judgment

Clause 4(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts entitlement to particular additional remuneration to teachers employed for an indefinite duration as established public officials, to the exclusion of, in particular, teachers employed under fixed-term contracts governed by public law, if the completion of a certain period of service is the only condition for grant of that additional remuneration.


(1)  OJ C 161, 7.5.2018.
Case C-475/18: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SATI - Societa Autocooperative Trasporti Italiani SpA v Aziendo di Trasporti Molisana — SpA (ATM) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public passenger transport services — Article 5 — Direct award of public service contracts — Prohibited by national law — Article 8(2) — Transitional arrangements)
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, public transport, services contract, services of general interest








C_2020010EN.01002002.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/20






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — SATI - Societa Autocooperative Trasporti Italiani SpA v Aziendo di Trasporti Molisana — SpA (ATM)
(Case C-475/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public passenger transport services - Article 5 - Direct award of public service contracts - Prohibited by national law - Article 8(2) - Transitional arrangements)
(2020/C 10/25)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: SATI - Societa Autocooperative Trasporti Italiani SpA

Defendant: Aziendo di Trasporti Molisana — SpA (ATM)

Intervener: Regione Molise

Operative part of the order

Article 5 and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 5(4) of that regulation is not applicable to decisions of competent local authorities relating to the direct award of public service contracts for the provision of local transport taken before 3 December 2019.


(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case T-578/17: Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2019 — a&o hostel and hotel Berlin v Commission (State aid — Operating aid — Youth hostel in Berlin — Rent-free use of a publicly owned property — Decision declaring the potential aid compatible with the internal market — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Serious difficulties)
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Berlin, Germany, State aid, control of State aid, hotel industry








C_2019295EN.01002102.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/21






Judgment of the General Court of 20 June 2019 — a&o hostel and hotel Berlin v Commission
(Case T-578/17) (1)

(State aid - Operating aid - Youth hostel in Berlin - Rent-free use of a publicly owned property - Decision declaring the potential aid compatible with the internal market - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Serious difficulties)
(2019/C 295/27)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: a&o hostel and hotel Berlin GmbH, successor in title to A & O Hotel and Hostel Friedrichshain GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Heise and M. Lindner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Blanck, A Bouchagiar and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents, and subsequently by R. Kanitz, acting as Agent, and K. Dingemann, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on State aid SA.43145 (2016/FC) — Germany, concerning the allegedly unlawful non-fiscal State aid granted to Jugendherberge Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH, a summary of which was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2017 C 193, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls Commission Decision C(2017) 3220 final of 29 May 2017 on State aid SA.43145 (2016/FC) — Germany, concerning the allegedly unlawful non-fiscal State aid granted to Jugendherberge Berlin Ostkreuz gGmbH;











2.



Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by a&o hostel and hotel Berlin GmbH;











3.



Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 338, 9.10.2017.
Case C-322/18: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Schiaffini Travel SpA v Comune di Latina (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Public passenger transport services by rail and by road — Article 5 — Award of public service contracts — Article 5(2) — Direct award — Definition of ‘internal operator’ — Article 8(2) — Transitional arrangements)
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: award of contract, public transport, services contract, services of general interest








C_2020010EN.01001901.xml










13.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 10/19






Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Italy) — Schiaffini Travel SpA v Comune di Latina
(Case C-322/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Public passenger transport services by rail and by road - Article 5 - Award of public service contracts - Article 5(2) - Direct award - Definition of ‘internal operator’ - Article 8(2) - Transitional arrangements)
(2020/C 10/23)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Schiaffini Travel SpA

Defendant: Comune di Latina

Interveners: Cilia Italia Srl, ATI costituita da Rossi Bus SpA e da Nuova Tesei Bus Srl, Régie autonome des transports parisiens (RATP)

Operative part of the order

Article 5 and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 must be interpreted as meaning that Article 5(2) of that regulation is not applicable to procedures opened with a view to the award of public service concession contracts taking place before 3 December 2019.


(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Case C-471/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Middlegate Europe NV v Ministerraad
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, application of EU law, equal treatment, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, harbour installation, professional qualifications, right of establishment








C_2019348EN.01000301.xml










14.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 348/3






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Middlegate Europe NV v Ministerraad
(Case C-471/19)
(2019/C 348/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Middlegate Europe NV

Respondent: Ministerraad

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 56 of that Treaty, with Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the principle of equality, be interpreted as precluding national legislative provisions that oblige persons or undertakings which, in a Belgian port area, wish to engage in dock-work activities within the meaning of the wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid (Law of 8 June 1972 organising dock work) — including activities which, strictly speaking, are unrelated to the loading and unloading of ships — to have recourse solely to recognised dockers?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the Grondwettelijk Hof provisionally maintain the effects of Articles 1 and 2 of the wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid in order to prevent legal uncertainty and social discontent and to enable the legislature to bring those provisions into line with the obligations arising from EU law?
Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/1018 of 20 June 2019 amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Russia, Russo-Ukrainian issue, Ukraine, economic sanctions, import (EU), import restriction, international sanctions, originating product








L_2019165EN.01006901.xml










21.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 165/69








            COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2019/1018
of 20 June 2019
         
amending Decision 2014/386/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol


THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,


Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:







(1)


On 23 June 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/386/CFSP (1).












(2)


The Council does not recognise and continues to condemn the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol by the Russian Federation and will remain committed to fully implementing its non-recognition policy.












(3)


On the basis of a review of Decision 2014/386/CFSP, the restrictive measures should be renewed until 23 June 2020.












(4)


Decision 2014/386/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,





HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:



Article 1
In Article 5 of Decision 2014/386/CFSP, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 23 June 2020.’



Article 2
This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.




Done at Brussels, 20 June 2019.


For the Council


The President

G. CIAMBA
            





(1)  Council Decision 2014/386/CFSP of 23 June 2014 concerning restrictive measures in response to the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol (OJ L 183, 24.6.2014, p. 70).
Case T-373/19: Action brought on 20 June 2019 — Gatti v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, damages, equal treatment, legality, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, retroactivity of a law








C_2019263EN.01007001.xml










5.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 263/70






Action brought on 20 June 2019 — Gatti v Parliament
(Case T-373/19)
(2019/C 263/75)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Natalino Gatti (Nonantola, Italy) (represented by: M. Paniz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the communiqué of the European Parliament Directorate-General for Finance implementing Resolution No 14/2018 of 12 July 2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and, in any event,










—


annul the redetermination and recalculation of the life annuity disbursed by the European Parliament;










—


accordingly, declare that the applicant is entitled to the maintenance of the life annuity in question in so far as it was accrued and is being accrued on the basis of the legislation in force prior to Resolution No 14/2018 of the Office of the President of the Italian Chamber [of Deputies] and/or Resolution No 6/2018 of the Presidential Council of the Senate of the Italian Republic, and order the European Parliament to pay him all the sums unduly withheld, adjusted for inflation, together with statutory interest from the date of withholding until the date of payment;










—


order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and immediately to restore in full the original amount of the life annuity, and to pay compensation for all damages if and to the extent that damages are payable to the applicant; and










—


in any event, order the Parliament to pay all costs, lawyers’ fees, plus VAT, taxes, duties and flat-rate charges.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/19, Santini v Parliament.
Statements relating to Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences, and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: Council of the European Union, European Parliament
Subjects: banking, cross-border cooperation, exchange of information, fight against crime, financial transaction, information system, money laundering, offence, organised crime, terrorism financing








C_2019234EN.01000101.xml










11.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 234/1






Statements relating to Directive (EU) 2019/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 laying down rules facilitating the use of financial and other information for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of certain criminal offences, and repealing Council Decision 2000/642/JHA (1)

(2019/C 234/01)

Statement by the European Parliament on Article 9

The European Parliament regrets that, against the original proposal, the Directive does not include rules on precise deadlines and IT channels for the exchange of information between Financial Intelligence Units of different Member States. The European Parliament also regrets that the scope of application of this Article has been limited to cases of terrorism and organised crime associated with terrorism, and does not cover, as originally proposed, all types of serious criminal offences, which can also have serious detrimental effects on our societies. The European Parliament urges the Commission to re-examine this issue as part of its reports on the implementation and evaluation of this Directive and of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive, and specifically as part of its assessment under Article 21. The European Parliament will closely follow and analyse those reports and assessments and will come up with its own recommendations, if necessary.

Statement by the Commission

In relation to Article 9 of the Directive, the Commission regrets that, against its original proposal, the Directive does not include rules on precise deadlines and IT channels for the exchange of information between Financial Intelligence Units of different Member States. The Commission also regrets that the scope of application of this Article has been limited to cases of terrorism and organised crime associated with terrorism, and does not cover all types of serious criminal offences, as originally proposed. The Commission will further reflect on Financial Intelligence Unit to Financial Intelligence Unit cooperation, notably as part of its reports on the implementation of this Directive and of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive.


(1)  OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, p. 122.
Case C-404/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) –Tine Vandenbon, Jamina Hakelbracht, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment of men and women — Access to employment and working conditions — Article 24 — Protection against retaliatory measures — Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy — Employee intervening in favour of that candidate — Dismissal of that employee)
Date: 2019-06-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: dismissal, equal treatment, gender equality, job access, motherhood, sexual discrimination, witness protection, working conditions








C_2019270EN.01001202.xml










12.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 270/12






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen — Belgium) –Tine Vandenbon, Jamina Hakelbracht, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen v WTG Retail BVBA
(Case C-404/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women - Access to employment and working conditions - Article 24 - Protection against retaliatory measures - Rejection of a candidate due to her pregnancy - Employee intervening in favour of that candidate - Dismissal of that employee)
(2019/C 270/14)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Tine Vandenbon, Jamina Hakelbracht, Instituut voor de Gelijkheid van Vrouwen en Mannen

Defendant: WTG Retail BVBA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 24 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in a situation where a person who believes to be discriminated against on grounds of sex has lodged a complaint, an employee who has supported that person in that context is protected from retaliatory measures taken by the employer solely if that employee has intervened as a witness in the context of the investigation of that complaint and that that employee’s witness statement satisfies formal requirements laid down by that legislation.


(1)  OJ C 311, 3.9.2018.