do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-516/19: Action brought on 19 July 2019 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA
Date: 2019-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU programme, Framework Programme for Research and Development, costing, cross-border cooperation, public transport, subcontracting, ticket, traveller








C_2019319EN.01002901.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/29






Action brought on 19 July 2019 — VDV eTicket Service v Commission and INEA
(Case T-516/19)
(2019/C 319/30)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: VDV eTicket Service GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Bartosch, lawyer)

Defendants: European Commission and Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare pursuant to Article 272 TFEU that the failure to acknowledge costs in the amount of EUR 407 443,04 via the letter at issue is unlawful;










—


in the alternative, annul the contested decision pursuant to the fourth subparagraph of Article 263 TFEU;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The action is brought against the decision of the Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) ARES(2019)3151305 of 13 May 2019, in so far as it declares that the applicant’s costs in the amount of EUR 407 443,04 in the context of the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme — Project: 636126 — European Travellers Club are not recoverable.
In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.






1.


First plea: abuse of rights, as the defendants necessarily should have known of the incorrect allocation of costs






—


The defendants committed an abuse of rights on the ground that, first, they did not acknowledge certain subcontracting costs incurred by the applicant and, secondly, they should however have known from a number of documents that the applicant’s subcontracting costs were considerably higher than stated in Annex 2 to the grant agreement in question.














2.


Second plea: infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations






—


The defendants also infringed the principle of protection of legitimate expectations for the same reasons as those set out in the first plea.
Case T-515/19: Action brought on 19 July 2019 — Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building blocks from a toy building set)
Date: 2019-07-19
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, toy industry








C_2019305EN.01006401.xml










9.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 305/64






Action brought on 19 July 2019 — Lego v EUIPO — Delta Sport Handelskontor (Building blocks from a toy building set)
(Case T-515/19)
(2019/C 305/74)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Lego A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Delta Sport Handelskontor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Registered Community design No 1664 368-0006

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 April 2019 in Case R 31/2018-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


maintain the decision of the Design Invalidity Division of EUIPO of 30 October 2017 rejecting the application for declaration of invalidity of the registered Community design No 1664 368-0006;










—


order EUIPO and, if the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO intervenes, the intervener, to bear the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;










—


Infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019243EN.01000201.xml










19.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 243/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

18 July 2019
(2019/C 243/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1216 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,89 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4672 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89853 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,5040 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,1064 




ISK


Iceland króna


141,10 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,6438 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,586 




HUF


Hungarian forint


326,46 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2596 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7325 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3852 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,5944 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4650 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7654 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,6640 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5261 




KRW


South Korean won


1 321,30 




ZAR


South African rand


15,6932 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7168 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3875 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 669,87 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6143 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,324 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,6478 




THB


Thai baht


34,635 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,2164 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,3786 




INR


Indian rupee


77,2775 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-247/19: Order of the President of the Court of 19 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta — Spain) — HC, ID v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
Date: 2019-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, real estate credit, unfair terms of contract








C_2020019EN.01004001.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/40






Order of the President of the Court of 19 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción de Ceuta — Spain) — HC, ID v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.
(Case C-247/19) (1)

(2020/C 19/45)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections
Date: 2019-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, control of State aid








C_2019244EN.01000101.xml










19.7.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 244/1






Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
Cases where the Commission raises no objections
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 244/01)







Date of adoption of the decision


15.04.2019




Aid number


SA.50807 (2019/N)




Member State


Ireland




Region


IRELAND, UNDEFINED


—




Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)


Support Scheme for Renewable Heat




Legal basis


Government Decision (Ref No. S180/20/10/1210A)




Type of measure


Scheme


—




Objective


Renewable energy, Environmental protection




Form of aid


Direct grant, Other — Operational Support




Budget


Overall budget: EUR 360 (in millions)




Intensity


—




Duration (period)


until 01.12.2025




Economic sectors


All economic sectors eligible to receive aid




Name and address of the granting authority


Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI)
Wilton Park House, Wilton Place, Dublin, D02 T228




Other information


—




The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.
Case C-555/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 19 July 2019 — Fussl Modestraße Mayr GmbH v SevenOne Media GmbH
Date: 2019-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: advertising, audiovisual industry, broadcasting, equal treatment, freedom to provide services, local media, pluralism in the media








C_2019357EN.01002101.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 19 July 2019 — Fussl Modestraße Mayr GmbH v SevenOne Media GmbH
(Case C-555/19)
(2019/C 357/26)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Fussl Modestraße Mayr GmbH

Defendant: SevenOne Media GmbH

Questions referred

Are






1.








a)


Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU, (1)











b)


the principle of equal treatment under EU law and










c)


the rules under Article 56 TFEU on freedom to provide services
to be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a provision in national law that prohibits the regional broadcasting of advertising on broadcasting programmes authorised for the entire Member State?














2.


Is Question 1 to be assessed differently if the national law allows statutory rules pursuant to which the regional broadcasting of advertising can be permitted by law and, in that case, is permitted with an — additionally required — official permit?










3.


Is Question 1 to be assessed differently if no use is actually made of the possibility of permitting regional advertising as described in Question 2 and regional advertising is therefore prohibited in its entirety?










4.


Having regard to Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, is Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly the principle of pluralism of the media, to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a national provision such as that described in Questions 1, 2 and 3?






(1)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1).