do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Information concerning the entry into force of the Protocol amending the Agreement on Air Transport between Canada and the European Community and its Member States, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Canada, Croatia, accession to the European Union, agreement (EU), air transport, protocol to an agreement, revision of an agreement








L_2019180EN.01000201.xml










4.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 180/2







Information concerning the entry into force of the Protocol amending the Agreement on Air Transport between Canada and the European Community and its Member States, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia

The Protocol amending the Agreement on Air Transport between Canada and the European Community and its Member States, to take account of the accession to the European Union of the Republic of Croatia, signed in Brussels on 27 January 2017 entered into force on 16 May 2019, in accordance with Article 3 of the Protocol, as the last notification was deposited on 16 April 2019.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019224EN.01000101.xml










4.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 224/1






Euro exchange rates (1)

3 July 2019
(2019/C 224/01)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1293 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,61 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4641 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89750 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5155 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1116 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6593 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,458 




HUF


Hungarian forint


322,44 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2428 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7349 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3682 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6093 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4794 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,8054 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6883 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5318 




KRW


South Korean won


1 321,04 




ZAR


South African rand


15,9387 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7703 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3955 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 970,00 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6774 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,781 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,8136 




THB


Thai baht


34,534 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,3640 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4816 




INR


Indian rupee


77,7470 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-468/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel 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.01007901.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/79






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel and Others v SRB
(Case T-468/19)
(2019/C 295/104)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Confédération nationale du Crédit mutuel (Paris, France) and the 25 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 T-484/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Pearson Loan Finance and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, corporation tax, equal treatment, foreign enterprise, group of companies, tax avoidance, tax exemption, tax law








C_2019312EN.01002701.xml










16.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 312/27






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Pearson Loan Finance and Others v Commission
(Case T-484/19)
(2019/C 312/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Pearson Loan Finance Unlimited (London, United Kingdom), Pearson Overseas Holdings Ltd (London), and Pearson International Finance Ltd (London) (represented by: A. von Bonin and O. Brouwer, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission Decision C(2019) 2526 final of 2 April 2019 on the State aid SA.44896 implemented by the United Kingdom concerning CFC Group Financing Exemption;










—


order the defendant to pay 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 errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and failure to adequately state reasons in the identification, in the contested decision, of the reference system.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging errors in law, manifest errors of assessment and failure to adequately state reasons in wrongly characterising, in the contested decision, the group financing exemption as a derogation from the normal operation of the reference system.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging errors in law and manifest errors of assessment in finding, in the contested decision, that the group financing exemption discriminates between economic operators.










4.


Fourth plea in law, alleging errors in law and manifest errors of assessment in the contested decision, in concluding that the group financing exemption is not justified by the nature or overall structure of the reference system.
Case C-624/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Tronex BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Waste — Shipments — Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 — Article 2(1) — Directive 2008/98/EC — Article 3(1) — Concepts of ‘shipment of waste’ and ‘waste’ — Consignment of goods initially intended for retail sale, returned by consumers or become redundant in the seller’s product range)
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carriage of goods, electrical equipment, electronic device, environmental protection, retail trade, waste, waste management








C_2019305EN.01000502.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/5






Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Den Haag — Netherlands) — Criminal proceedings against Tronex BV
(Case C-624/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Waste - Shipments - Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 - Article 2(1) - Directive 2008/98/EC - Article 3(1) - Concepts of ‘shipment of waste’ and ‘waste’ - Consignment of goods initially intended for retail sale, returned by consumers or become redundant in the seller’s product range)
(2019/C 305/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof Den Haag

Party in the main proceedings

Tronex BV

Operative part of the judgment

The shipment to a third country of a consignment of electrical and electronic appliances, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which had been initially intended for retail sale but which were returned by the consumer or which, for various reasons, were sent back by the retailer to its supplier, is to be regarded as a ‘shipment of waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Article 2(1) thereof, and Article 3(1) of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, where that consignment contains appliances the good working condition of which has not been previously ascertained or which are not adequately protected from transport damage. Such goods which have become redundant in the seller’s product range and which are in their unopened original packaging, on the other hand, must not, without indications to the contrary, be regarded as waste.


(1)  OJ C 32, 29.1.2018.
Case T-458/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Di Prima 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.01007201.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/72






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Di Prima v Parliament
(Case T-458/19)
(2019/C 295/94)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Pietro Di Prima (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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9391 — PGGM/Macquarie/MAGL) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: aircraft, banking, consultancy, economic concentration, financial services, lease, merger control, pension fund








C_2019235EN.01000201.xml










12.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9391 — PGGM/Macquarie/MAGL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 235/02)
On 4 July 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 32019M9391. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-454/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Musotto 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.01007002.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/70






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Musotto v Parliament
(Case T-454/19)
(2019/C 295/92)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Francesco Musotto (Pollina, 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-467/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — BNP Paribas 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.01007801.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/78






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — BNP Paribas and Others v SRB
(Case T-467/19)
(2019/C 295/103)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: BNP Paribas (Paris, France), BNP Paribas Arbitrage (Paris) and BNP Paribas Securities Services (Paris) (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.
Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on Air Transport between Canada and the European Community and its Member States
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Canada, agreement (EU), air transport








L_2019180EN.01000101.xml










4.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 180/1







Information concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on Air Transport between Canada and the European Community and its Member States

The Agreement on Air Transport between Canada and the European Community and its Member States, signed in Brussels on 17 December 2009, entered into force on 16 May 2019, in accordance with Article 23(1) of the Agreement, as the last notification was deposited on 16 April 2019.
Case C-99/18 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Opposition proceedings — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘Fl’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the word element ‘fly.de’ — Rejection — Similarity between the signs — Name in normal script in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin — Likelihood of confusion)
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, air transport, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019305EN.01001501.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/15






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 July 2019 — FTI Touristik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch
(Case C-99/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Opposition proceedings - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the figurative mark including the word element ‘Fl’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the figurative mark including the word element ‘fly.de’ - Rejection - Similarity between the signs - Name in normal script in the European Union Trade Marks Bulletin - Likelihood of confusion)
(2019/C 305/18)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Appellant: FTI Touristik GmbH (represented by: A. Parr, Rechtsanwältin)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka and D. Botis, Agents), Harald Prantner, Daniel Giersch (represented by: S. Eble, Rechtsanwalt)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the appeal;










2.


Orders FTI Touristik GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office of the European Union for Intellectual Property (EUIPO);










3.


Orders Mr Harald Prantner and Mr Daniel Giersch to bear their own costs.






(1)  OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.
Case T-489/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — BPCE 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.01008301.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/83






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — BPCE and Others v SRB
(Case T-489/19)
(2019/C 295/109)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: BPCE (Paris, France) and the 45 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 T-455/19: Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Pettinari 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.01007101.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/71






Action brought on 4 July 2019 — Pettinari v Parliament
(Case T-455/19)
(2019/C 295/93)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Luciano Pettinari (Rome, 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-509/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 4 July 2019 — BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v Hauptzollamt München
Date: 2019-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs territory (EU), customs valuation, import (EU), motor vehicle industry, software, vehicle parts








C_2019328EN.01002201.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/22






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 4 July 2019 — BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG v Hauptzollamt München
(Case C-509/19)
(2019/C 328/23)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: BMW Bayerische Motorenwerke AG

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Question referred

Should the development costs for software that has been produced in the European Union, made available to the seller by the buyer free of charge and installed on the imported control unit be added to the transaction value for the imported product pursuant to Article 71(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (1) if they are not included in the price actually paid or payable for the imported product?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 269, p. 1.