do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-554/19: Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Spain v Commission
Date: 2019-08-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, language skills, official language








C_2019319EN.01003101.xml










23.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 319/31






Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Spain v Commission
(Case T-554/19)
(2019/C 319/32)
Language of the case: Spanish

Parties


Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the competition notice; and










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is directed against the notice of open competition — EPSO/AD/374/19 — Administrators (AD 7) in the following fields: 1. Competition law; 2. Financial law; 3. Economic and Monetary Union Law; 4. Financial rules applicable to the EU budget; 5. Protection of euro coins against counterfeiting. (1)

In support of its action, the applicant raises four pleas in law.






1.


Infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of Regulation No 1/58, (2) Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), and Article 1d of the Staff Regulations, as a result of the restriction of communication between EPSO and the candidate solely to English, French, German or Italian, and of the restriction of the languages that may be used when filling in the talent screener section of the application form.










2.


Infringement of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58, Article 22 of the Charter, and Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, as a result of the improper restriction of the selection of the second language to four languages only (French, English, German and Italian), excluding the other official languages of the European Union.










3.


The selection of English, French, German and Italian constitutes an arbitrary selection giving rise to discrimination on the ground of language, contrary to Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.










4.


The fact that the competition notice fails expressly to specify that language 1 must be the language in which candidates have a minimum C1 level gives rise to double discrimination, on the ground of nationality and on the ground of the language ‘spoken’, thereby infringing Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations.






(1)  OJ 2019 C 191 A, p. 1.

(2)  Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ 1958, 17, p. 385).
Case C-602/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2019 — Kohlpharma GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Date: 2019-08-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: drug surveillance, free movement of goods, import (EU), import policy, labelling, market approval, marketing standard, medicinal product








C_2019357EN.01002401.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/24






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 August 2019 — Kohlpharma GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Case C-602/19)
(2019/C 357/30)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Kohlpharma GmbH

Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

Questions referred







1.


Do the principle of the free movement of goods laid down in Article 34 TFEU and the principles, developed on that basis, of the parallel import of medicinal products require the national authorising authority to consent to an amendment to the indications regarding the dosage of a parallel-imported medicinal product even if the reference authorisation has expired and the amendment is substantiated with an adoption of the indications regarding a domestically produced medicinal product with essentially the same active ingredient and different form of administration in combination with the indications approved in the exporting State for the parallel-imported medicinal product?










2.


Against the background of Articles 34 and 36 TFEU, can the national authority refuse to consent to such an amendment by noting that parallel importers are exempt from the obligation to submit periodic safety reports and, due to the lack of a domestic reference authorisation, there is no current data on the risk-benefit assessment, the existing domestic authorisation concerns a different form of administration and relates to a different active ingredient concentration from the authorisation for the same form of administration in the exporting State, and the combination of two forms of administration in the information texts is moreover inconceivable?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-08-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019267EN.01004701.xml










9.8.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 267/47






Euro exchange rates (1)

8 August 2019
(2019/C 267/10)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1193 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,64 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4631 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,92115 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7530 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0923 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,0180 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,789 




HUF


Hungarian forint


325,08 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3227 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7300 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1367 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6483 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4874 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,7774 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7335 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5483 




KRW


South Korean won


1 353,16 




ZAR


South African rand


16,9516 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8873 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3814 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 903,01 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,6843 




PHP


Philippine peso


58,347 




RUB


Russian rouble


73,1407 




THB


Thai baht


34,413 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4283 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,9250 




INR


Indian rupee


79,1750 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-555/19: Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
Date: 2019-08-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019328EN.01007001.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/70






Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
(Case T-555/19)
(2019/C 328/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 in Case R 1355/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Art 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-557/19: Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Seven v EUIPO (7Seven)
Date: 2019-08-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019328EN.01007201.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/72






Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Seven v EUIPO (7Seven)
(Case T-557/19)
(2019/C 328/79)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark 7Seven — European Union trade mark No 8 252 223

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 June 2019 in Case R 2076/2018-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


grant the application lodged by Seven SpA for restitutio in integrum and recordal request No 14 602 687 for EU trademark No 8 252 223.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 53 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 104 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-556/19: Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
Date: 2019-08-09
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, catering industry, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019328EN.01007101.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 328/71






Action brought on 9 August 2019 — Republic of Cyprus v EUIPO — Fontana Food (GRILLOUMI)
(Case T-556/19)
(2019/C 328/78)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz QC, S. Baran, Barrister and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark GRILLOUMI — Application for registration No 15 963 291

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 May 2019 in Case R 1284/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Art 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-604/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 9 August 2019 — Gmina Wrocław v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej
Date: 2019-08-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, goods and services, municipality, public authorities, real property, supply, taxpayer, usufruct








C_2019383EN.01004201.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/42






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 9 August 2019 — Gmina Wrocław v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej
(Case C-604/19)
(2019/C 383/50)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gmina Wrocław

Defendant: Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Questions referred







1.


Does the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into immovable property ownership rights by operation of law, such as in the circumstances of the present case, constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(2)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) thereof, which is subject to value added tax (‘VAT’)?










2.


If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into immovable property ownership rights by operation of law constitute a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) thereof, which is subject to VAT?










3.


Does a municipality that charges fees for the transformation of the right of perpetual usufruct into immovable property ownership rights by operation of law, such as in the circumstances of the present case, act as a taxable person within the meaning of Article 9(1) of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) thereof, or as a public authority within the meaning of Article 13 of that directive?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.