do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-482/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — XF v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Installation allowance — Temporary change of place of employment — Change of residence)
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European External Action Service, European official, installation allowance, migrant worker, remuneration of work, residence








C_2019328EN.01005101.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/51






Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — XF v Commission
(Case T-482/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Installation allowance - Temporary change of place of employment - Change of residence)
(2019/C 328/57)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: XF (represented by J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by T. Bohr and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the European Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 2 October 2017, by which it refused to grant the applicant the benefit of the installation allowance when he moved and took up his appointment at the headquarters of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in Brussels (Belgium).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders XF to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.







(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Case C-519/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Passenger Rights spółka akcyjna, with its seat in Warsaw v Ryanair DAC, with its seat in Dublin (Ireland)
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, consumer protection, jurisdiction, unfair terms of contract








C_2019337EN.01000701.xml










7.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 337/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Passenger Rights spółka akcyjna, with its seat in Warsaw v Ryanair DAC, with its seat in Dublin (Ireland)
(Case C-519/19)
(2019/C 337/08)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Passenger Rights SA

Defendant: Ryanair DAC, with its seat in Dublin (Ireland)

Questions referred

Should Articles 2(b), 3(1) and (2) and 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — as regards examination of the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction — be interpreted as meaning that the final purchaser of a claim acquired by way of assignment from a consumer, which final purchaser is not a consumer himself, may rely on the absence of individual negotiation of contractual terms and on unfair contractual terms arising from a jurisdiction clause?


(1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

(2)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.
Case T-253/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — VY v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Middle management post — Rejection of application — Vacancy notice — Selection procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Equality between men and women)
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, Union delegation, competition (EU), gender equality, job vacancy, middle management








C_2019295EN.01002701.xml










2.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 295/27






Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — VY v Commission
(Case T-253/18) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Middle management post - Rejection of application - Vacancy notice - Selection procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Equality between men and women)
(2019/C 295/34)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: VY (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Vernier, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application and the decision appointing another candidate to the post of Head of Unit within a European Union delegation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders VY to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 240, 9.7.2018.
Case C-527/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — HG and IH v Bankia, S.A.
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: borrowing, consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, legal expenses, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2019413EN.01002101.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — HG and IH v Bankia, S.A.
(Case C-527/19)
(2019/C 413/24)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: HG, IH

Respondent: Bankia, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


Whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, (1) in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, the following ruling is compliant with EU law in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law: the ruling by the Supreme Court in judgments 44 to 49 of 23 January 2019, which establishes the unambiguous criterion that a term in a consumer mortgage loan agreement that has not been negotiated and that stipulates that all the costs of arranging the mortgage are to be borne by the borrower is unfair, and which apportions the various expenses that are involved in the unfair term found to be void between the bank that imposed the term and the borrower, in order to limit repayments of amounts wrongly paid under national legislation.
And whether, under Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of the directive, in order to ensure protection for consumers and users and compliance with the relevant case-law, it is compliant with EU law for the Supreme Court to adopt an inclusive interpretation of a term that is void for unfairness if the term can be severed and its effects abolished without affecting the continued existence of the mortgage loan agreement.










2.


Also, whether, as regards Article 394 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Law on Civil Procedure), which establishes the principle that the costs of proceedings are to be borne by the unsuccessful party, it can be held that where an unfair expenses clause is declared void but the effects of voiding the term are limited to apportioning the expenses in question, it is contrary to the EU legal principles of effectiveness and the non-binding nature of unfair terms to conclude that a claim has been upheld in part, and whether such a conclusion could be interpreted as producing an inverse deterrent effect, which thus fails to protect the legitimate interests of consumers and users.






(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.
Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau apply
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Guinea-Bissau, economic sanctions, international sanctions, natural person








C_2019231EN.01000201.xml










9.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/2






Notice for the attention of the persons to whom restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau apply
(2019/C 231/03)
The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annexes II and III to Council Decision 2012/285/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies threatening the peace, security or stability of the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.
The Council of the European Union, after having reviewed the list of persons designated in the above-mentioned Annexes, has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2012/285/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 377/2012 should continue to apply to those persons.
The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites listed in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 377/2012, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).
The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned lists should be reconsidered, by 31 October 2019, to the following address:





Council of the European Union




General Secretariat




RELEX.1.C




Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175




1048 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË




Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu






(1)  OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 36.

(2)  OJ L 119, 4.5.2012, p. 1.
Case C-525/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — GF v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European citizenship, family law, family migration, family relationship, foreign national, freedom of movement, residence permit








C_2019432EN.01001601.xml










23.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 432/16






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — GF v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo
(Case C-525/19)
(2019/C 432/19)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: GF

Respondent: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo

Questions referred







1.


Is the requirement that a Spanish citizen who has not exercised his right of free movement must satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Royal Decree 240/2007, as a necessary condition for the grant of a right of residence to his third-country spouse under Article 7(2) of that Royal Decree, liable, in the event that those conditions are not satisfied, to constitute an infringement of Article 20 TFEU if, as a result of the refusal to grant that right, the Spanish citizen is compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole? All of the above presupposes the requirement laid down in Article 68 of the Spanish Civil Code (Código Civil) for spouses to live together.










2.


In any event, notwithstanding the foregoing, does the practice of the Spanish State of automatically applying the rule laid down in Article 7 of Royal Decree 240/2007, and refusing to grant a residence permit to a family member of an EU citizen where that EU citizen has never exercised freedom of movement, solely and exclusively on the ground that the EU citizen does not satisfy the conditions laid down in that provision, without having examined specifically and individually whether there exists a relationship of dependency between that EU citizen and the third-country national of such a nature that, for any reason and in the light of the circumstances, it would mean that were the third-country national refused a right of residence, the EU citizen could not be separated from the family member dependent on him and would have to leave the territory of the European Union, infringe Article 20 TFEU in the terms set out above? All of this is in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, including, inter alia, the judgment of 8 May 2018, C-82/16, K.A. and Others v Belgische Staat. (1)







(1)  Judgment of 8 May 2018, K.A. and Others (Family reunification in Belgium) (C-82/16, EU:C:2018:308).
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019231EN.01000401.xml










9.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 231/4






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 July 2019
(2019/C 231/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1215 




JPY


Japanese yen


121,80 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4631 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89625 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5973 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1127 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6840 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,509 




HUF


Hungarian forint


324,66 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2530 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7200 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,4304 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6058 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4642 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7482 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6888 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5247 




KRW


South Korean won


1 322,07 




ZAR


South African rand


15,8813 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7173 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3955 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 824,37 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6436 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,580 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,5025 




THB


Thai baht


34,514 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2752 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,2581 




INR


Indian rupee


76,8955 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-397/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Hugo’s Hotel v EUIPO — H'ugo's (HUGO’S BURGER Bar) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark HUGO’S BURGER Bar — Earlier EU word mark H’ugo’s — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, meat product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019328EN.01005002.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/50






Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Hugo’s Hotel v EUIPO — H'ugo's (HUGO’S BURGER Bar)
(Case T-397/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark HUGO’S BURGER Bar - Earlier EU word mark H’ugo’s - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 328/56)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hugo’s Hotel Ltd (St. Julians, Malta) (represented by: R. Sladden, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Śliwińska and J. Ivanauskas, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: H’ugo’s GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2018 (Case R 1879/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between H’ugo’s and Hugo’s Hotel 2 May 2018 (Case R 1879/2017-4), relating to opposition proceedings between H’ugo’s and Hugo’s Hotel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Hugo’s Hotel Ltd to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Case C-526/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Entoma SAS v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: insect, novel food








C_2019328EN.01002401.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Entoma SAS v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation
(Case C-526/19)
(2019/C 328/26)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Entoma SAS

Defendants: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Question referred

Is Article 1(2)(e) of the Regulation of 27 January 1997 (1) to be interpreted as including within its scope foods consisting of whole animals intended to be consumed as such or does it apply only to food ingredients isolated from insects?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 1).
Case C-520/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2019 — ARMOSTAV MÍSTEK s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, case-law (EU), equality before the law, liability, misuse of a right, national law, ownership, tax authorities, tax offence, tax relief








C_2019328EN.01002301.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Ostravě (Czech Republic) lodged on 9 July 2019 — ARMOSTAV MÍSTEK s.r.o. v Odvolací finanční ředitelství
(Case C-520/19)
(2019/C 328/25)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Krajský soud v Ostravě

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ARMOSTAV MÍSTEK s.r.o.

Defendant: Odvolací finanční ředitelství

Question referred

Does the existence of express national legislation relating to [joint and several] liability for missing tax in a fraudulent chain preclude tax administration authorities from refusing the person held liable under that legislation the right to deduct value added tax in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on VAT fraud? Is such a practice in that situation precluded by Article 17(1), Article 20, Article 52(1), Article 52(6), and Article 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?