do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-159/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(3) — Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Scope — Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation — Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ — Presence of petrol on an airport runway)
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, indemnification








C_2019280EN.01000601.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/6






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi — Belgium) — André Moens v Ryanair Ltd
(Case C-159/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Article 5(3) - Compensation to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights - Scope - Exemption from the obligation to pay compensation - Concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ - Presence of petrol on an airport runway)
(2019/C 280/06)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Juge de paix du troisième canton de Charleroi

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: André Moens

Defendant: Ryanair Ltd

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, read in the light of recitals 14 and 25 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which led to its closure and, consequently, the long delay of a flight to or from that airport, falls within the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, when the petrol in question does not originate from an aircraft of the carrier that operated that flight.










2.


Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, read in the light of recitals 14 and 15 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of petrol on a runway of an airport which has led to the closure of that runway, the nature of which is established as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’, must be regarded as a circumstance which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken within the meaning of that provision.






(1)  OJ C 166, 14.5.2018.
Case T-474/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Portugal v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Portugal — Late payments — Overshooting of ceilings — Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 — Double financial correction — Proportionality — Payment deadlines)
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, deadline for payment, eligibility criteria, principle of proportionality








C_2019295EN.01002101.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/21






Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Portugal v Commission
(Case T-474/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Portugal - Late payments - Overshooting of ceilings - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 - Double financial correction - Proportionality - Payment deadlines)
(2019/C 295/26)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties


Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes, M, Figueiredo, J. Saraiva de Almeida and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by B. Rechena and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/1144 of 26 June 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2017 L 165, p. 37), in so far as it excludes from European Union financing, for the 2011 financial year, expenditure declared by the Portuguese Republic for late payments and the overshooting of ceilings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Case T-387/19: Action brought on 26 June 2019 — DF and DG v EIB
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, interest, right to justice, staff regulations (EU)








C_2019288EN.01005601.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/56






Action brought on 26 June 2019 — DF and DG v EIB
(Case T-387/19)
(2019/C 288/69)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: DF and DG (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

Defendant: European Investment Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


declare the present action admissible and well-founded;




and accordingly;






—


annul the decisions refusing to grant DF and DG the installation allowance when they returned from external offices (decisions taken on 6 March 2018 and 28 February 2019, respectively);










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 19 March 2019 (in respect of DF) and 27 March 2019 (in respect of DG) by which the EIB considered that there was no need to initiate the conciliation procedure since their complaints were ‘manifestly unfounded’;










—


in so far as necessary, annul the decisions of 14 June 2019 confirming the refusal to grant the installation allowance;










—


order the defendant to pay the installation allowance to both of the applicants, plus default interest calculated at the European Central Bank rate plus 2 points, until full payment;










—


order the defendant to pay all the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging infringement, as interpreted by the European Investment Bank (EIB), of Articles 5 and 17 of Annex VII to the EIB Staff Regulations, in so far as the new interpretation of the rule laid down in those provisions is not consistent with the objective it is supposed to pursue.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of acquired rights, infringement of legitimate expectations, a lack of transitional arrangements, and infringement of the principle of good administration and the duty of care.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 41 of the EIB Staff Regulations.
Case C-488/19: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 26 June 2019 – Minister for Justice and Equality v JR
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, bilateral agreement, enforcement of ruling, offence, penalty, third country








C_2019337EN.01000501.xml










7.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/5






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland) made on 26 June 2019 – Minister for Justice and Equality v JR
(Case C-488/19)
(2019/C 337/05)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court (Ireland)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

Defendant: JR

Questions referred







1.


Does the Framework Decision (1) apply to the situation where the requested person was convicted and sentenced in a third state but by virtue of a bilateral treaty between that third state and the issuing state, the judgment in the third state was recognised in the issuing state and enforced according to the laws of the issuing state?










2.


If so, in circumstances where the executing member state has applied in its national legislation the optional grounds for non-execution of the European arrest warrant set out in Article 4.1 and Article 4.7(b) of the Framework Decision, how is the executing judicial authority to make its determination as regards an offence stated to be committed in the third state, but where the surrounding circumstances of that offence display preparatory acts that took place in the issuing state?






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).
Case C-487/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 June 2019 — W.Ż.
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: appointment of members, independence of the judiciary, judge, right to justice








C_2019337EN.01000401.xml










7.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 26 June 2019 — W.Ż.
(Case C-487/19)
(2019/C 337/04)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: W.Ż.

Intervening party: Prokurator Prokuratury Krajowej Bożena Górecka

Question referred

Should Articles 2, 6(1) and (3) and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) [TEU], in conjunction with Article 47 [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights] and Article 267 [TFEU], be interpreted as meaning that a court composed of a single person who has been appointed to the position of judge in flagrant breach of the laws of a Member State applicable to judicial appointments — which breach included, in particular, the appointment of that person to the position of judge despite a prior appeal to the competent national court (the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland)) against the resolution of a national body (the Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (National Council for the Judiciary, Poland)), which included a motion for the appointment of that person to the position of judge, notwithstanding the fact that the implementation of that resolution had been stayed in accordance with national law and that proceedings before the competent national court (Supreme Administrative Court) had not been concluded before the delivery of the appointment letter — is not an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law within the meaning of EU law?
Case T-617/17: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Vialto Consulting v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Instrument for pre-accession assistance — Third country — National public procurement — Devolved management — Decision of a national authority — Investigations by OLAF — Nonmaterial damage — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2185/96 — Principle of sound administration — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Right to be heard)
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, damages, pre-accession aid, principle of proportionality, public procurement, rights of the defence, third country








C_2019295EN.01002401.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/24






Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Vialto Consulting v Commission
(Case T-617/17) (1)

(Non-contractual liability - Instrument for pre-accession assistance - Third country - National public procurement - Devolved management - Decision of a national authority - Investigations by OLAF - Nonmaterial damage - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2185/96 - Principle of sound administration - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Right to be heard)
(2019/C 295/30)
Language of the case: Greek

Parties


Applicant: Vialto Consulting Kft. (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, J. Baquero Cruz and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant due to unlawful acts allegedly committed, first, by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the course of an inspection carried out in the applicant’s premises and, second, by the European Commission following that inspection.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Vialto Consulting Kft. to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 402, 27.11.2017.
Case T-466/16: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — NRW. Bank v SRB (Action for annulment — Economic and monetary union — Banking union — Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) — Single Resolution Fund (SRF) — Setting of the ex ante contribution for 2016 — Time limit for bringing an action — Delay — Article 76 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, credit institution, economic policy, financing, investment company, limitation of legal proceedings, monetary policy








C_2019288EN.01004401.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/44






Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — NRW. Bank v SRB
(Case T-466/16) (1)

(Action for annulment - Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Single resolution mechanism for credit institutions and certain investment firms (SRM) - Single Resolution Fund (SRF) - Setting of the ex ante contribution for 2016 - Time limit for bringing an action - Delay - Article 76 of the Rules of procedure of the General Court - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 288/56)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: NRW. Bank (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented initially by: A. Behrens, J. Kraayvanger and J. Seitz, and subsequently by J. Seitz and D. Flore, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: B. Meyring, S. Schelo, T. Klupsch and S. Ianc, lawyers)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and K.-Ph. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06) and, secondly, of the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund, supplementing the decision of the SRB in its executive session of 15 April 2016 on the ex ante contributions for 2016 to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13), in so far as they relate to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action as inadmissible;











2.



Orders NRW. Bank to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Single Resolution Board (SRB);











3.



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







(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9319 — DP World/P&O Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 389/05
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, economic concentration, harbour installation, logistics, maritime transport, merger control








C_2019389EN.01001001.xml










18.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 389/10






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9319 — DP World/P&O Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 389/05)
On 26 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 32019M9319. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019215EN.01000101.xml










26.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 215/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

25 June 2019
(2019/C 215/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1388 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,97 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4654 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89485 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5320 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1108 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6855 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,557 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,49 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2563 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7184 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,5708 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6341 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,5001 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8915 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7140 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5411 




KRW


South Korean won


1 314,27 




ZAR


South African rand


16,2881 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8347 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3945 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


16 116,30 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,7119 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,477 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,4389 




THB


Thai baht


34,973 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3669 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9042 




INR


Indian rupee


78,9725 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-651/18: Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Balani Balani and Others v EUIPO — Play Hawkers (HAWKERS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark HAWKERS — Earlier EU figurative mark HAWKERS — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01005401.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/54






Judgment of the General Court of 26 June 2019 — Balani Balani and Others v EUIPO — Play Hawkers (HAWKERS)
(Case T-651/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark HAWKERS - Earlier EU figurative mark HAWKERS - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 305/65)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicants: Sonu Gangaram Balani Balani (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain), Anup Suresh Balani Shivdasani (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) and Amrit Suresh Balani Shivdasani (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria) (represented by: A. Díaz Marrero, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Play Hawkers, SL (Elche, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 August 2018 (Case R 396/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Play Hawkers, on the one side, and Mr Balani Balani, Mr Balani Shivdasani and Mr Balani Shivdasani, on the other side.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Sonu Gangaram Balani Balani, Anup Suresh Balani Shivdasani and Amrit Suresh Balani Shivdasani to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Case C-497/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Ibercaja Banco, S.A. v SO and TP
Date: 2019-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: bank, banking, consumer protection, enforcement of ruling, judicial review, limitation of legal proceedings, unfair terms of contract








C_2019357EN.01001102.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/11






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Spain) lodged on 26 June 2019 — Ibercaja Banco, S.A. v SO and TP
(Case C-497/19)
(2019/C 357/16)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Ibercaja Banco, S.A.

Respondents: SO and TP

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling







(1)


Is national legislation compatible with EU law where it may be inferred from that legislation that, if a particular unfair term withstood an initial review conducted by a court of its own motion when making an enforcement order, that review prevents the same court from subsequently assessing that term of its own motion where the factual and legal elements existed from the outset, even if that initial review did not express, in the operative part or in the grounds, any considerations on the validity of the terms?










(2)


Where factual and legal elements exist which determine the unfairness of a term in a consumer contract and the party against whom enforcement is sought fails to rely on that unfairness in the application objecting to enforcement laid down for that purpose by the Law, can that party, following the resolution of that application, make a further preliminary application aimed at determining whether one or more other terms is/are unfair when that party could have relied on those terms at the outset in the ordinary procedural step provided for in the Law? In short, is a time-barring effect created which prevents the consumer from raising again the issue of unfairness of another term in the same enforcement proceedings, and even in subsequent declaratory proceedings?










(3)


If the conclusion that the party is not entitled to make a second or subsequent application objecting to the enforcement proceedings, in order to allege the unfairness of a term which that party could have raised earlier because the necessary factual and legal elements had already been determined, is held to be compatible with EU law, can this serve as a basis for use as a means whereby the court, having been alerted to the unfairness of that term, is able to exercise its power of review of its own motion?