do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-523/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — ED v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, 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.01002001.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/20






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — ED v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
(Case C-523/19)
(2019/C 413/23)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: ED

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, 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.
Case C-522/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — DC v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, 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.01001902.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — DC v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
(Case C-522/19)
(2019/C 413/22)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 6 de Ceuta

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DC

Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

Questions referred







1.


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, 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.
Corrigendum to Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2019/1113 of 19 June 2019 on the appointment of the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/1/2019) (OJ L 176, 1.7.2019)
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Central African Republic, EU military mission, appointment of members, military cooperation, military personnel, military training








L_2019183EN.01001401.xml










9.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 183/14







Corrigendum to Political and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2019/1113 of 19 June 2019 on the appointment of the EU Mission Force Commander of the European Union CSDP Military Training Mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA) (EUTM RCA/1/2019)

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 176 of 1 July 2019
)


On page 4, signatory:
for:



                     ‘
                     For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMERSBERGER
                     ’,


read:



                     ‘
                     For the Political and Security Committee


The Chairperson

S. FROM-EMMESBERGER
                     ’.
Case T-472/19: Action brought on 9 July 2019 — BASF v Commission
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: market approval, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation, principle of proportionality, public health








C_2019305EN.01005601.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/56






Action brought on 9 July 2019 — BASF v Commission
(Case T-472/19)
(2019/C 305/67)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: BASF AS (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: E. Wright, Barrister-at-law, A. Rusanov and H. Boland, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul, in its entirety, or insofar as it affects the applicant, Commission Implementing Decision C(2019) 4336 final of 6 June 2019 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use containing ‘Omega-3 acid ethyl esters’ for oral use in secondary prevention after myocardial infarction;










—


order the defendant to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision has no valid legal basis.






—


The applicant argues that, by adopting the contested decision, the European Commission failed to respect and fulfil the obligations imposed on the institution by Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC; (1)











—


More specifically, the applicant states that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the medicinal product Omacor is harmful, lacks therapeutic efficacy, that the risk-benefit balance is not favourable, or that its qualitative and quantitative composition is not as declared;










—


The contested decision, it is further argued, disregards the principle established by the case-law of the Court of Justice that the favourable risk-benefit balance and efficacy of Omacor are presumed and that it is for the European Commission to demonstrate that the available clinical data supports the reversal of this presumption.














2.


Second plea in law, alleging that, by adopting the contested decision, the defendant disregarded the general principle of proportionality under EU law.






—


It is argued again, under this plea, that the defendant failed to demonstrate that Omacor lacks therapeutic efficacy or that the risk-benefit balance of Omacor is no longer favourable. Moreover, the applicant maintains that the contested decision manifestly fails to respect the principle of proportionality;










—


Even if, quod non, there had been substantiated concerns regarding the efficacy or risk-benefit balance of Omacor, the defendant would have been required to consider measures that could address these concerns and which are less restrictive than the contested decision.










(1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
Case T-660/18: Order of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — VodafoneZiggo Group v Commission (Action for annulment — Electronic communications — Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC — Wholesale provision of fixed access — Joint significant market power — Specific regulatory obligations imposed on operators — Draft measure made accessible by the national regulatory authority — Comments of the Commission — Second phase of the procedure not opened — Act not open to challenge — Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Internet access provider, provision of services, regulation of telecommunications, restriction on competition, wholesale trade








C_2019328EN.01005401.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/54






Order of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — VodafoneZiggo Group v Commission
(Case T-660/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Electronic communications - Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC - Wholesale provision of fixed access - Joint significant market power - Specific regulatory obligations imposed on operators - Draft measure made accessible by the national regulatory authority - Comments of the Commission - Second phase of the procedure not opened - Act not open to challenge - Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure - Inadmissibility)
(2019/C 328/61)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: VodafoneZiggo Group BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Knibbeler and A. Pliego Selie, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the letter of 30 August 2018 sent by the Commission to the Autoriteit Consument en Markt (Consumers and Markets Authority, Netherlands), the Dutch regulatory authority, containing its comments made pursuant to Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), on a draft measure made accessible by that authority (Cases NL/2018/2099 and NL/2018/2100).

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed as inadmissible.











2.



There is no longer any need to rule on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Kingdom of the Netherlands or by T-Mobile Netherlands Holding BV, T-Mobile Netherlands BV, T-Mobile Thuis BV and Tele2 Nederland BV.











3.



VodafoneZiggo Group BV shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of those relating to the applications for leave to intervene.











4.



VodafoneZiggo Group, the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, T-Mobile Netherlands Holding, T-Mobile Netherlands, T-Mobile Thuis and Tele2 Nederland shall each bear their own costs relating to the applications for leave to intervene.







(1)  OJ C 4, 7.1.2019.
Case T-53/18: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Germany v Commission (Approximation of laws — Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 — Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 — Construction products — Harmonised standards EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 and EN 12285-2:2005 — Obligation to state reasons)
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European standard, approximation of laws, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, fuel oil, harmonisation of standards, plastics, steel, storage, technical standard








C_2019328EN.01004601.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/46






Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Germany v Commission
(Case T-53/18) (1)

(Approximation of laws - Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 - Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 - Construction products - Harmonised standards EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 and EN 12285-2:2005 - Obligation to state reasons)
(2019/C 328/50)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by T. Henze and J. Möller, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents, and by M. Winkelmüller, F. van Schewick and M. Kottmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of, first, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1995 of 6 November 2017 to maintain in the Official Journal of the European Union the reference of harmonised standard EN 13341:2005 + A1:2011 on static thermoplastic tanks for above-ground storage of domestic heating oils, kerosene and diesel fuels in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 288, p. 36) and, second, Commission Decision (EU) 2017/1996 of 6 November 2017 to maintain in the Official Journal of the European Union the reference of harmonised standard EN 12285-2:2005 on Workshop fabricated steel tanks in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2017 L 288, p. 39)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



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







(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Council Recommendation of 9 July 2019 on the appointment of the President of the European Central Bank
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: European Central Bank, appointment of members, president of an institution








C_2019235EN.01000101.xml










12.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 235/1






COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
of 9 July 2019
on the appointment of the President of the European Central Bank
(2019/C 235/01)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 283(2) and 139(2) thereof,
Having regard to Protocol No 4 on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 11.2 thereof,
HEREBY RECOMMENDS TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL THAT:
Ms Christine LAGARDE be appointed as President of the European Central Bank for a term of office of eight years with effect from 1 November 2019.

Done at Brussels, 9 July 2019.


For the Council


The President

M. LINTILÄ
Generation Revolution.
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: contemporary history, cultural event, young person, youth movement

Generation
Revolution

In the 1960s, young people started 
to protest, this is why they are called 
“Generation Revolution”. For example, 
they dressed differently from their parents. 
Why didn’t parents like to see 
their children dressed like this?

Try different 
costumes and 
accessories  
to discover the 
fashion  from
this generation.

Ask the adult 
in your group to  
draw here what they 
looked like when he/she was 20.
What was the most eccentric 
item of clothes or haircut they had?

Family
trail

Draw here 
how you will look like 
when you will be 20. 
Be creative!

Ask your  

parents

to tell you a memory about a trip 
they did alone or with some friends 
when they were around 20.

Generation
Revolution

Growing up means at some 
point leaving your parents to start 
an independent life: 
“to stand on your own”.

On the poster, 
what are the 
two young 
people taking 
with them?

Why do you think they 
chose these objects?

Luxembourg: Publications Office 
 of the European Union, 2019
© European Union, 2019. Rights reserved.

CREDITS: British Fashion in Paris © Keystone; 
© Inter-Rail Poster, Author: Guy Georget.

What would you take with you 
if you were 20  and going around 
the world without your parents?
Draw your ideas here

N
-
N
E
-
9
7
5
-
8
1
-
4
0
-
A
Q

    suitcases
Answers: guitar,
Case T-158/18: Order of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Scaloni and Figini v Commission (Action for damages — Resolution of credit institutions and investment firms — Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 — State Aid — Disregard of the procedural requirements — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Italy, State aid, aid to undertakings, application of EU law, bank, company in difficulties, equal treatment, indemnification, national law, share








C_2019328EN.01005202.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/52






Order of the General Court of 9 July 2019 — Scaloni and Figini v Commission
(Case T-158/18) (1)

(Action for damages - Resolution of credit institutions and investment firms - Directive 2014/59/EU and Regulation (EU) No 806/2014 - State Aid - Disregard of the procedural requirements - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2019/C 328/59)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicants: Mario Scaloni (Ancona, Italy) and Ennio Figini (Chiaravalle, Italy) (represented by: P. Putti, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia, A. Steiblytė and K.-P. Wojcik, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and M. Sammut, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Rebasti and J. Bauerschmidt, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for material loss alleged to have been suffered as a result of the Commission’s refusal to allow the Italian state to establish a state aid in favour of the Banca delle Marche.

Operative part of the order







1.



The action is dismissed.











2.



Mario Scaloni and Ennio Figini shall bear their own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission.











3.



The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union shall bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9227 — Rockwell/Schlumberger/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: automation, economic concentration, extraction of oil, merger control, natural gas, project management








C_2019237EN.01000101.xml










15.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 237/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9227 — Rockwell/Schlumberger/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 237/01)
On 9 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 32019M9227. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-524/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Investcapital Ltd v FE
Date: 2019-07-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil procedure, consumer protection, injunction, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, unfair terms of contract








C_2019363EN.01000701.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules (Spain) lodged on 9 July 2019 — Investcapital Ltd v FE
(Case C-524/19)
(2019/C 363/12)
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Nules

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Investcapital Ltd

Defendant: FE

Question referred

Must Article 7 of Regulation No 1896/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 be interpreted as meaning that, in European order for payment proceedings brought thereunder, it does not preclude courts from reviewing of their own motion any unfair terms in the contract under which the debt has arisen in accordance with Article 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) on unfair terms in consumer contracts, particularly if the national court needs to carry out a prior examination of the contract in order to conduct that review?


(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1).

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