do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-801/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale — Luxembourg) — EU v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom of movement for workers — Equal treatment — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 4 — Social security convention concluded between the Member State of employment and a non-member country — Family allowances — Application to a frontier worker who is neither a national nor a resident of one of the Contracting States to the convention)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Brazil, Luxembourg, equal treatment, family benefit, free movement of workers, international convention, legal domicile, nationality, social security legislation








C_2020019EN.01000402.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/4






Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale — Luxembourg) — EU v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants
(Case C-801/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 4 - Social security convention concluded between the Member State of employment and a non-member country - Family allowances - Application to a frontier worker who is neither a national nor a resident of one of the Contracting States to the convention)
(2020/C 19/05)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: EU

Defendant: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

Operative part of the order

Article 45 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, must be interpreted as precluding the refusal by the competent authorities of one Member State to pay to a national of a second Member State, who works in the first Member State without living there, family allowances for his child living in a non-member country with her mother when, under identical conditions for the grant of those benefits, those competent authorities recognise the entitlement of their own nationals and residents to family benefits pursuant to a bilateral international convention concluded between the first Member State and that non-member country, unless those authorities can put forward an objective justification for refusing to do so.


(1)  OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
Case C-239/19: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) – United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products – Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 – Article 3(b) – Conditions for obtaining – Marketing authorisation – Authorisation issued to a third party – Manifest inadmissibility)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: market approval, marketing standard, medicinal product, patent law, pharmaceutical legislation








C_2019383EN.01003502.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/35






Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) – United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc.
(Case C-239/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(b) - Conditions for obtaining - Marketing authorisation - Authorisation issued to a third party - Manifest inadmissibility)
(2019/C 383/39)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company

Defendant: Genentech Inc.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 4 March 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.


(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019
Case T-599/19: Action brought on 5 September 2019 — EM v Parliament
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, harassment at work, indemnification, misuse of a right, psychological harassment








C_2019383EN.01006301.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/63






Action brought on 5 September 2019 — EM v Parliament
(Case T-599/19)
(2019/C 383/72)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: EM (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare the present application admissible and well founded;










—


annul the contested decision dated 31 October 2018, which was confirmed by the decision dated 24 May 2019 rejecting the applicant’s complaint;










—


order the payment of compensation in respect of the material harm allegedly suffered, amounting to EUR 165 000, and compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered, estimated at the sum of EUR 50 000.










—


order the defendant to pay all 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 infringement of Articles 1 and 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, infringement of Articles 12 and 12a(3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, a failure to observe the duty to provide assistance and misuse of powers.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty of good administration, breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of staff and a manifest error of assessment.
Case C-172/18: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas (Reference for a preliminary ruling – EU trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 – Article 97(5) – Jurisdiction – Infringement proceedings – Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which ‘the act of infringement has been committed’ – Advertising and offers for sale displayed on a website and on social media platforms)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, electronic commerce, jurisdiction, registered trade mark, social media, trade-mark law








C_2019383EN.01002301.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/23






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree v Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas
(Case C-172/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 97(5) - Jurisdiction - Infringement proceedings - Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which ‘the act of infringement has been committed’ - Advertising and offers for sale displayed on a website and on social media platforms)
(2019/C 383/23)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: AMS Neve Ltd, Barnett Waddingham Trustees, Mark Crabtree

Defendants: Heritage Audio SL, Pedro Rodríguez Arribas,

Operative part of the judgment

Article 97(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a European Union trade mark who considers that his rights have been infringed by the use without his consent, by a third party, of a sign identical to that mark in advertising and offers for sale displayed electronically in relation to products that are identical or similar to the goods for which that mark is registered, may bring an infringement action against that third party before a European Union trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom that advertising and those offers for sale are directed are located, notwithstanding that that third party took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display.


(1)  OJ C 190, 4.6.2018.
Case T-607/19: Action brought on 5 September 2019 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO (FAKE DUCK)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, footwear industry, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2019372EN.01003401.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/34






Action brought on 5 September 2019 — Itinerant Show Room v EUIPO (FAKE DUCK)
(Case T-607/19)
(2019/C 372/35)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Itinerant Show Room Srl (San Giorgio in Bosco, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark FAKE DUCK — Application for registration No. 17 946 879

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 July 2019 in Case R 830/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Failure to take into account the inherent distinctive character of the mark FAKE DUCK;










—


Failure to take into account the complexity of the mark FAKE DUCK and the picture of an egg;










—


Misapplication of the principle of equal treatment;










—


Misapplication of the principle of legality.
Case C-333/18: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Lombardi Srl v Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Review procedures on the award of public supply and public works contracts – Directive 89/665/EEC – Action for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract by a tenderer whose bid was unsuccessful – Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer – Admissibility of the main action in the event that the counterclaim is well founded)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, award of contract, judicial review, supplies contract, tendering, works contract








C_2019383EN.01002601.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/26






Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Lombardi Srl v Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl
(Case C-333/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Review procedures on the award of public supply and public works contracts - Directive 89/665/EEC - Action for annulment of the decision awarding a public contract by a tenderer whose bid was unsuccessful - Counterclaim brought by the successful tenderer - Admissibility of the main action in the event that the counterclaim is well founded)
(2019/C 383/27)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Lombardi Srl

Respondents: Comune di Auletta, Delta Lavori SpA, Msm Ingegneria Srl

Intervener: Robertazzi Costruzioni Srl

Operative part of the judgment

The third subparagraph of Article 1(1) and (3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as precluding a main action for review brought by a tenderer with an interest in obtaining a particular contract who has been or could be adversely affected by an alleged breach of EU public procurement law or rules transposing that law, and seeking the exclusion of another tenderer, from being declared inadmissible in application of national jurisprudential procedural rules or which concern the treatment of reciprocal ‘excluding’ actions brought by the parties, irrespective of the number of tenderers having participated in the procurement procedure or the number of those having brought actions for review.


(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.
Case T-244/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, foodstuff, milk product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019363EN.01003701.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/37






Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)
(Case T-244/19) (1)

(2019/C 363/47)
Language of the case: English
The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Case T-209/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Giorgio Armani v EUIPO — Invicta Watch Company of America (GLYCINE) (European Union trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Withdrawal of the application for registration – No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clock and watch industry, clothing, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, optical industry, personal effects, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019363EN.01001601.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/16






Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Giorgio Armani v EUIPO — Invicta Watch Company of America (GLYCINE)
(Case T-209/19) (1)

(European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
(2019/C 363/23)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Giorgio Armani SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: J. Rether and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. (Hollywood, Florida, United States)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 February 2019 (Case R 578/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Giorgio Armani and Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc.

Operative part of the order







1.



There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.











2.



Giorgio Armani SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).







(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.
Case T-313/15 and T-317/15: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Italy v Commission (Rules on the use of languages – Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators – Choice of second language from three languages – Regulation No 1 – Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations – Principle of non-discrimination – Proportionality – Manifestly well-founded action)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EPSO, administrator, competition (EU), linguistic discrimination, official language, principle of proportionality








C_2019363EN.01001301.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/13






Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Italy v Commission
(Case T-313/15 and T-317/15) (1)

(Rules on the use of languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Choice of second language from three languages - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality - Manifestly well-founded action)
(2019/C 363/19)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, F. Simonetti and D. Milanowska, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, acting as Agent)

Re:

In Case T-313/15, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/301/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) (OJ 2015 C 92 A, p.1), and, in Case T-317/15, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/3012/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5) (OJ 2015 C 99 A, p.1).

Operative part of the order







1.



Cases T-313/15 and T-317/15 are joined for the purpose of the present order.











2.



The notice of open competition EPSO/AD/301/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators (AD 5) and the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/3012/15 to draw up a reserve list of administrators in the field of audit (AD 5) are annulled.











3.



The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Italian Republic.











4.



The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9416 — Bolloré Group/M7 Group) (Text with EEA relevance) 2020/C 49/06
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, programmes industry, provision of services, television








C_2020049EN.01000601.xml










13.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 49/6






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9416 — Bolloré Group/M7 Group)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2020/C 49/06)
On 5 September 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 32019M9416. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-376/19: Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, advertising, distance selling, electrical engineering, engine, machine tool, pulp and paper industry, registered trade mark, retail selling, trade-mark law








C_2019363EN.01003702.xml










28.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 363/37






Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)
(Case T-376/19) (1)

(2019/C 363/48)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.
Case C-559/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH v Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Tariff classification – Combined Nomenclature – Subheading 85044030 – Static converters – Classification criteria – Main intended use)
Date: 2019-09-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, computer system, customs union, data processing, electronic device, specification of tariff heading, telecommunications equipment








C_2019383EN.01003501.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/35






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH v Hauptzollamt Lörrach
(Case C-559/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheading 85044030 - Static converters - Classification criteria - Main intended use)
(2019/C 383/38)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: TDK-Lambda Germany GmbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Lörrach

Operative part of the judgment

Subheading 85 044 030 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 927/2012 of 9 October 2012, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1001/2013 of 4 October 2013, must be interpreted as meaning that static converters such as those at issue in the main proceedings may fall within that subheading only if the main use for which they are intended is with ‘telecommunication apparatus or automatic data processing machines and the units thereof’, within the meaning of that subheading, which is a matter for verification by the referring court.


(1)  OJ C 436, 3.12.2018.