do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-488/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU banking union, bank, economic recession, equal treatment, payment, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality








C_2019295EN.01008201.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/82






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Crédit agricole and Others v SRB
(Case T-488/19)
(2019/C 295/108)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Crédit agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and the 48 other applicants (represented by: A. Gosset-Grainville, M. Trabucchi and M. Dalon, lawyers)

Defendant: Single Resolution Board

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Decision SRB/ES/SRF/2019/10 on the calculation of the 2019 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRF) in so far as it concerns the applicants;










—


pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, declare the following provisions of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (‘SRM Regulation’), the Implementing Regulation and the Delegated Regulation inapplicable:






—


Article 69(2), Article 70(1) and Article 70(2)(a) and (b) of the SRM Regulation;










—


Article 4(2), Article 6, Article 7 and Article 10 of the Delegated Regulation and Annex I thereto;










—


Article 4 and Article 8(5) of the Implementing Regulation;














—


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 which are, in essence, identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-466/19, Société générale and Others v SRB.
Case C-377/17: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Services in the internal market — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 15 — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Fees of architects and engineers for planning services — Minimum and maximum tariffs)
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: engineer, infringement procedure (EU), minimum pay, national implementing measure, provision of services, remuneration of work, right of establishment, service, town-planning profession, wage determination








C_2019305EN.01000201.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/2






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-377/17) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Services in the internal market - Directive 2006/123/EC - Article 15 - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Fees of architects and engineers for planning services - Minimum and maximum tariffs)
(2019/C 305/02)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, L. Malferrari and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: T. Henze and D. Klebs, and subsequently by D. Klebs, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and M.M. Tátrai, acting as Agents

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that, by maintaining fixed tariffs for the planning services of architects and engineers, the Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15(1), (2)(g) and (3) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market.










2.


Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.










3.


Orders Hungary to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.
Case T-598/17: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2019 — Italy v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure made by Italy — Delays and negligence attributable to bodies of the Member State — Burden placed on the Member State of the financial consequences of the lack of recovery — Financial corrections — Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 — Article 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 — Reasonable time)
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EAFRD, EAGF, agricultural expenditure, aid to agriculture, eligibility criteria








C_2019295EN.01002201.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/22






Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2019 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-598/17) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure made by Italy - Delays and negligence attributable to bodies of the Member State - Burden placed on the Member State of the financial consequences of the lack of recovery - Financial corrections - Articles 31 and 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Article 12 of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 907/2014 - Reasonable time)
(2019/C 295/28)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G Palmieri, acting as Agent, and initially by: P. Pucciariello, subsequently by: F. Varrone, avvocati dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment in part 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 concerns the Italian Republic.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 357, 23.10.2017.
Case T-461/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Rossetti v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-04
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.01007401.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/74






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Rossetti v Parliament
(Case T-461/19)
(2019/C 295/97)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Rossetti (Trieste, 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-393/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Freddy Lucien Magdalena Kirschstein, Thierry Frans Adeline Kirschstein (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Scope — Concept of ‘commercial practices’ — Directive 2006/123/EC — Services in the internal market — Criminal law — Authorisation schemes — Higher education — ‘Master’s’ degree — Prohibition to confer certain degrees without authorisation)
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal law, diploma, higher education, penalty, provision of services, restriction on competition








C_2019305EN.01000301.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/3






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Freddy Lucien Magdalena Kirschstein, Thierry Frans Adeline Kirschstein
(Case C-393/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Scope - Concept of ‘commercial practices’ - Directive 2006/123/EC - Services in the internal market - Criminal law - Authorisation schemes - Higher education - ‘Master’s’ degree - Prohibition to confer certain degrees without authorisation)
(2019/C 305/03)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties in the main proceedings

Freddy Lucien Magdalena Kirschstein, Thierry Frans Adeline Kirschstein

Intervener: Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as not applying to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for criminal penalties to be imposed on persons who, without prior authorisation from the competent authority, confer a ‘master’s’ degree.










2.


Article 1(5) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 10 thereof, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for criminal penalties to be imposed on persons who, without prior authorisation from the competent authority, confer a ‘master’s’ degree, provided that the conditions to which the granting of an authorisation to confer that degree is subject are compatible with Article 10(2) of that directive, which it is for the national court to verify.






(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Case T-662/18: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2019 — romwell v EUIPO (twistpac) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark twistpac — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Duty of care — Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, machinery, packaging, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019328EN.01005501.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/55






Order of the General Court of 4 July 2019 — romwell v EUIPO (twistpac)
(Case T-662/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark twistpac - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Duty of care - Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
(2019/C 328/62)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: romwell GmbH & Co. KG (Breitscheidt, Germany) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and M. Prasse, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2018 (Case R 336/2018-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign twistpac as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



romwell GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Case T-462/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Porrazzini v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-04
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.01007402.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/74






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Porrazzini v Parliament
(Case T-462/19)
(2019/C 295/98)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giacomo Porrazzini (Terni, 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-463/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Cervetti v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-04
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.01007501.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/75






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Cervetti v Parliament
(Case T-463/19)
(2019/C 295/99)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Giovanni Cervetti (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-464/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Podestà v Parliament
Date: 2019-07-04
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.01007601.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/76






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Podestà v Parliament
(Case T-464/19)
(2019/C 295/100)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Guido Podestà (Vila Real de Santo António, Portugal) (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.