do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-413/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Dupuis v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01004002.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/40






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Dupuis v Parliament
(Case T-413/19)
(2019/C 295/52)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Olivier Dupuis (Saint-Gilles, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-405/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Malerba v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019280EN.01004801.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/48






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Malerba v Parliament
(Case T-405/19)
(2019/C 280/67)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Franco Malerba (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Florio, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-397/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Novati v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019280EN.01004502.xml










19.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 280/45






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Novati v Parliament
(Case T-397/19)
(2019/C 280/63)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Vanda Novati (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-340/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Gibson Brands v EUIPO — Wilfer (Shape of a guitar body) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU three-dimensional mark — Shape of a guitar body — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, musical instrument, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019288EN.01004901.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/49






Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Gibson Brands v EUIPO — Wilfer (Shape of a guitar body)
(Case T-340/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU three-dimensional mark - Shape of a guitar body - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 59(2) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2019/C 288/62)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Gibson Brands, Inc. (Nashville, Tennessee, United States) (represented by: initially K. Hughes, Solicitor, and A. Renck and C. Stöber, lawyers, and subsequently A. Renck and C. Stöber)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Hans-Peter Wilfer (Markeneukirchen, Germany) (represented by O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 March 2018 (Case R 415/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Wilfer and Gibson Brands.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Gibson Brands, Inc. to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 249, 16.7.2018.
Case C-499/19 P: Appeal brought on 28 June 2019 by Victor Lupu against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Case T-558/18: Lupu v EUIPO - Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Djili DS)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural product, beverage, crop production, foodstuff, live animal, processed food product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019357EN.01001201.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/12






Appeal brought on 28 June 2019 by Victor Lupu against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 30 April 2019 in Case T-558/18: Lupu v EUIPO - Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam (Djili DS)
(Case C-499/19 P)
(2019/C 357/17)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: Victor Lupu (represented by: P.A. Acsinte, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Et Djili Soy Dzhihangir Ibryam
By order of 5 September 2019 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.
Case T-410/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Di Lello Finuoli v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019288EN.01006301.xml










26.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 288/63






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Di Lello Finuoli v Parliament
(Case T-410/19)
(2019/C 288/77)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (Palermo, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case T-415/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Laroni v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01004201.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/42






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Laroni v Parliament
(Case T-415/19)
(2019/C 295/54)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Nereo Laroni (Venice, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Case C-501/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 28 June 2019 — UCMR — ADA Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor a Compozitorilor v Asociației Culturale Suflet de Român, represented by its liquidator, Pro Management Insolv IPURL
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, copyright, invoicing, music, performing arts, taxpayer, trade licence








C_2019372EN.01001002.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 28 June 2019 — UCMR — ADA Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor a Compozitorilor v Asociației Culturale Suflet de Român, represented by its liquidator, Pro Management Insolv IPURL
(Case C-501/19)
(2019/C 372/09)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: UCMR — ADA Asociația pentru Drepturi de Autor a Compozitorilor

Respondent: Asociației Culturale Suflet de Rom, represented by its liquidator, Pro Management Insolv IPURL

Questions referred







1.


Do the holders of rights in musical works supply services within the meaning of Articles 24(1) and 25(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) (the VAT Directive) to performance organisers from which collective management organisations, on the basis of an authorisation — a non-exclusive licence — receive remuneration, in their own name but on behalf of those right holders, for the public performance of musical works?










2.


If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do collective management organisations, when receiving remuneration from performance organisers for the right to perform musical works for a public audience, act as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 28 of the VAT Directive, and are they required to issue invoices including VAT to the respective performance organisers, and, when remuneration is paid to authors and other holders of copyright in musical works, are the latter, in turn, required to issue invoices including VAT to the collective management organisation?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 28 June 2019 in the case of Melissa Colleen Campbell v The Norwegian Government (Case E-4/19)2019/C 351/12
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EU national, European Economic Area, Norway, family, family migration, foreign national, free movement of persons, residence permit








C_2019351EN.01001501.xml










17.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 351/15






Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Norges Høyesterett dated 28 June 2019 in the case of Melissa Colleen Campbell v The Norwegian Government
(Case E-4/19)
(2019/C 351/12)
A request has been made to the EFTA Court dated 28 June 2019 from Norges Høyesterett (the Supreme Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June 2019, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Melissa Colleen Campbell v The Norwegian Government on the following questions:






1.


In the light of the EU Court of Justice’s recent case law in which the view of the Grand Chamber in its judgment of 12 March 2014 in Case C-456/12 O. and B. concerning the derived right of residence has been maintained, and on the basis of the homogeneity principle, is Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC, read in conjunction with its Article 7(2), applicable by analogy to a situation where an EEA citizen returns to the home State together with a family member?










2.


What does the requirement of ‘continuous’ residence under the Directive as expressed in paragraph 80 of the EFTA Court’s judgment of 26 July 2016 in Case E-28/15 Jabbi entail? It would be especially useful if the EFTA Court could comment on:






a)


whether and, if so, to what extent there can be interruptions in residence, and










b)


whether the cause of a possible interruption — such as its being for work-related reasons — may be of import for the assessment of whether the residence is continuous within the meaning of the Directive.














3.


What is required by the condition that the EEA citizen’s residence in the host State must have been ‘genuine such as to enable family life in that State’, as expressed in, inter alia, paragraph 80 of the EFTA Court’s judgment of 26 July 2016 in Case E-28/15, Jabbi; paragraph 51 of the judgment of the EU Court of Justice of 12 March 2014 in Case C-456/12, O. and B., read in conjunction with paragraphs 56 and 57 thereof; and paragraphs 24 and 26 of the latter Court’s judgment of 5 June 2018 in Case C 673/16, Coman, and read also in the light of the abuse of rights provision in Article 35 of the Directive?
Case T-412/19: Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Contu v Parliament
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Bureau of the EP, Italy, Member of the European Parliament, allowances and expenses, equal treatment, national law, pension scheme, principle of legal certainty








C_2019295EN.01004001.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/40






Action brought on 28 June 2019 — Contu v Parliament
(Case T-412/19)
(2019/C 295/51)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Felice Contu (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare non-existent or annul in its entirety the measure of which the applicant was informed by means of the contested communication, in which the European Parliament re-determined retirement pension rights and ordered recovery of the amount paid on the basis of the earlier pension calculation;










—


order the European Parliament to refund all the sums unduly withheld, and to pay statutory interest from the date of withholding to the date of payment and order the European Parliament to implement the judgment and undertake all the necessary initiatives, acts or measures to ensure the immediate, full re-establishment of the original pension amount;










—


order the European Parliament to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-389/19, Coppo Gavazzi v Parliament.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9389 — Porsche Holding Salzburg/SIVA/Soauto) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: distributor, economic concentration, maintenance, merger control, motor vehicle industry, retail trade, vehicle parts, wholesale trade








C_2019217EN.01001801.xml










28.6.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 217/18






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.9389 — Porsche Holding Salzburg/SIVA/Soauto)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 217/08)

1.   
On 20 June 2019, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Porsche Holding Gesellschaft m.b.H. (‘Porsche Holding Salzburg’, Austria), an indirect subsidiary of Volkswagen AG and part of the Volkswagen Group (‘VW Group’),










—


SIVA — Sociedade de Importação de Veículos Automóveis, SA (‘SIVA’, Portugal),










—


Soauto — SGPS, SA (‘Soauto’, Portugal).




Porsche Holding Salzburg acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of SIVA and Soauto.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:
—   for Porsche Holding Salzburg: wholesale and retail distribution of passenger cars, light commercial vehicles and related spare parts as well as repair services in European and non-European countries; The VW Group is active worldwide in the development, manufacture, marketing and sale of passenger cars, light commercial vehicles, trucks, buses, coaches, chassis for buses and diesel engines, motor bikes, each including spare parts and accessories, and in vehicle distribution,
—   for SIVA: general importer of most of the VW Group brands in Portugal,
—   for Soauto: retailer of vehicles and spare parts of the VW Group brands and provider of related car repair and maintenance services in Portugal.


3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.9389 — Porsche Holding Salzburg/SIVA/Soauto
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:





Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu




Fax +32 22964301




Postal address:




European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Case T-64/18: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Alfamicro v Commission (Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme — Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Enforcement decision — Recovery of a debt arising out of a grant agreement — Article 299 TFEU — Regulation (EU, Euratom) no 966/2012 — Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012 — Extrapolation of the audit findings — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-06-28
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Framework Programme for Research and Development, claim, competitiveness, debt, financial audit, infringement of EU law, innovation, judicial power, powers of the institutions (EU)








C_2019295EN.01002501.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/25






Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2019 — Alfamicro v Commission
(Case T-64/18) (1)

(Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme - Seventh framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Enforcement decision - Recovery of a debt arising out of a grant agreement - Article 299 TFEU - Regulation (EU, Euratom) no 966/2012 - Article 135 of Regulation No 966/2012 - Extrapolation of the audit findings - Obligation to state reasons)
(2019/C 295/32)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda. (Cascais, Portugal) (represented by: G. Gentil Anastácio and D. Pirra Xarepe, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 8839 final of 13 December 2017 concerning the recovery of a debt from the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Alfamicro — Sistemas de computadores, Sociedade Unipessoal, Lda to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 142, 23.4.2018.