do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-679/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 12 September 2019 – NL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative sanction, capital movement, confiscation of property, customs formalities, money








C_2019423EN.01002102.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/21






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 12 September 2019 – NL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București
(Case C-679/19)
(2019/C 423/27)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Ilfov

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: NL

Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice București

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (1) to be interpreted as precluding a penalty such as that laid down in Article 653(i) of Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 707/2006 (Government Decree No 707/2006), which provides that cash in excess of EUR 10 000 that has not been declared in writing to the customs authority is to be confiscated in its entirety and permanently?










2.


Is Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community to be interpreted as precluding the application by Member States of an administrative penalty consisting in the confiscation of the entire undeclared amount without any prior or subsequent verification of the provenance or destination of the amounts and regardless of their provenance and destination?






(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1889/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (OJ 2005 L 309, p. 9).
Case C-709/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 — European Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd, European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (Appeal – Dumping – Implementing regulation (EU) 2015/776 – Import of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines – Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China – Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 – Article 13 – Circumvention – Assembly operations – Provenance and origin of bicycle parts – Parts consigned from China to Sri Lanka, worked in Sri Lanka and then consigned from Sri Lanka to Pakistan for assembly)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Cambodia, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, anti-dumping duty, import (EU), originating product, spare part, two-wheeled vehicle








C_2019383EN.01001402.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/14






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 — European Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd, European Bicycle Manufacturers Association
(Case C-709/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Dumping - Implementing regulation (EU) 2015/776 - Import of bicycles consigned from Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines - Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of bicycles originating in China - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Article 13 - Circumvention - Assembly operations - Provenance and origin of bicycle parts - Parts consigned from China to Sri Lanka, worked in Sri Lanka and then consigned from Sri Lanka to Pakistan for assembly)
(2019/C 383/13)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Appellant: European Commission (represented by: M. França, J.-F. Brakeland and A. Demeneix, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd (represented by: P. Bentley QC), European Bicycle Manufacturers Association, (represented by: J. Beck, Solicitor, and by L. Ruessmann, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 October 2017, Kolachi Raj Industrial v Commission (T-435/15, EU:T:2017:712);










2.


Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd;










3.


Orders Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and the European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 112, 26.3.2018.
Case T-417/16: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission (State aid — Aid to Klaipėdos Nafta for the construction and management of an LNG terminal at the Klaipėda Seaport — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Article 106(2) TFEU — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Decision not to raise any objections — Security of supply — Service of general economic interest)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Lithuania, State aid, award of contract, control of State aid, equal treatment, gas industry, gas pipeline, invitation to tender, right to justice, services of general interest








C_2019399EN.01003902.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/39






Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Achemos Grupė and Achema v Commission
(Case T-417/16) (1)

(State aid - Aid to Klaipėdos Nafta for the construction and management of an LNG terminal at the Klaipėda Seaport - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Article 106(2) TFEU - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Decision not to raise any objections - Security of supply - Service of general economic interest)
(2019/C 399/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Achemos Grupė UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) and Achema AB (Jonava, Lithuania) (represented initially by R. Martens and C. Maczkovics, and subsequently by R. Martens and V. Ostrovskis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, N. Kuplewatzky and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented initially by D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Dzikovič, and subsequently by R. Dzikovič, acting as Agents), Klaipėdos Nafta AB (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: K. Kačerauskas and V. Vaitkutė Pavan, lawyers)

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7884 final of 20 November 2013, whereby State aid SA.36740 (2013/NN) granted by Lithuania to Klaipėdos Nafta was declared compatible with the internal market (OJ 2016, C 161, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Achemos Grupė UAB and Achema AB to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;











3.



Orders the Republic of Lithuania and Klaipėdos Nafta AB to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.
Case C-683/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário, SA v G-Star Raw CV (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Intellectual and industrial property – Copyright and related rights – Directive 2001/29/EC – Article 2(a) – Concept of ‘work’ – Protection of works by copyright – Conditions – Connection with the protection of designs – Directive 98/71/EC – Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 – Clothing designs)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: clothing, copyright, designs and models, literary and artistic property, work of art








C_2019383EN.01001201.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/12






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário, SA v G-Star Raw CV
(Case C-683/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 2(a) - Concept of ‘work’ - Protection of works by copyright - Conditions - Connection with the protection of designs - Directive 98/71/EC - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Clothing designs)
(2019/C 383/10)
Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Cofemel — Sociedade de Vestuário, SA

Respondent: G-Star Raw CV

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding national legislation from conferring protection, under copyright, to designs such as the clothing designs at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that, over and above their practical purpose, they generate a specific, aesthetically significant visual effect.


(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Case C-681/19 P: Appeal brought on 12 September 2019 by Fereydoun Mahmoudian against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2019 in Case T-406/15, Mahmoudian v Council
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU restrictive measure, Iran, damages, economic sanctions, indemnification, infringement of EU law, international sanctions, natural person, proof








C_2019372EN.01002701.xml










4.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 372/27






Appeal brought on 12 September 2019 by Fereydoun Mahmoudian against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 2 July 2019 in Case T-406/15, Mahmoudian v Council
(Case C-681/19 P)
(2019/C 372/29)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (represented by: A. Bahrami, N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

Form of order sought

Primarily:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in part;










—


give final judgment in the matter;










—


order the Council to pay the appellant the sum of EUR 966 581 in respect of material damage and EUR 500 000 in respect of non-material damage, together with default interest;










—


order the Council to pay all of the costs.




In the alternative:






—


set aside the judgment under appeal in part;










—


refer the case back to the General Court;










—


order the Council to pay all of the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

Concerning the material damage, the General Court, in the first place, erred in law, infringed the principle of full reparation and deprived Article 340(2) TFEU and Article 41(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of their practical effect. The standard of proof required by the General Court made any compensation for the harm suffered impossible, despite the existence of a sufficiently serious and flagrant breach of EU law. In the second place, the judgment under appeal was vitiated by an error of law and by contradictory reasoning. In the third place, the General Court distorted the evidence and the facts.
Concerning the non-material damage, the judgment under appeal contains no statement of reasons as regards the criteria taken into account in order to assess ex aequo et bono the amount of the compensation.
Case T-250/18: Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — RATP v Commission
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, disclosure of information, professional secret, protection of privacy








C_2019399EN.01010302.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/103






Order of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — RATP v Commission
(Case T-250/18) (1)

(2019/C 399/123)
Language of the case: French
The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019308EN.01000201.xml










12.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 308/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

11 September 2019
(2019/C 308/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1003 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,51 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4607 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,89133 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6563 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0934 




ISK


Iceland króna


138,70 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,8745 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,867 




HUF


Hungarian forint


332,40 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3335 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7348 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,3335 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6021 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4468 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,6261 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7147 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5180 




KRW


South Korean won


1 312,34 




ZAR


South African rand


16,1384 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8309 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,3945 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 470,22 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5987 




PHP


Philippine peso


57,354 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,8661 




THB


Thai baht


33,653 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,4721 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4565 




INR


Indian rupee


78,8720 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Joined Cases C-64/18, C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Zoran Maksimovic (C-64/18), Humbert Jörg Köfler (C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Leitner (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Joachim Schönbeck (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Semper (C-140/18 and C-148/18) v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal (References for a preliminary ruling – Article 56 TFEU – Freedom to provide services – Posting of workers – Retention and translation of records of wages – Work permit – Penalties – Proportionality – Fines of a minimum predefined amount – Cumulative – No upper limit – Court costs – Custodial sentence in lieu of a fine)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: administrative formalities, fine, freedom to provide services, imprisonment, labour law, legal expenses, pay, posted worker, principle of proportionality, work permit








C_2019383EN.01001701.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/17






Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark — Austria) — Zoran Maksimovic (C-64/18), Humbert Jörg Köfler (C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Leitner (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Joachim Schönbeck (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Semper (C-140/18 and C-148/18) v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal
(Joined Cases C-64/18, C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18) (1)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Posting of workers - Retention and translation of records of wages - Work permit - Penalties - Proportionality - Fines of a minimum predefined amount - Cumulative - No upper limit - Court costs - Custodial sentence in lieu of a fine)
(2019/C 383/16)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesverwaltungsgericht Steiermark

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Zoran Maksimovic (C-64/18), Humbert Jörg Köfler (C-140/18, C-146/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Leitner (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Joachim Schönbeck (C-140/18 and C-148/18), Wolfgang Semper (C-140/18 and C-148/18)

Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Murtal

Intervener: Finanzpolizei

Operative part of the judgment

Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides, in respect of non-compliance with labour law obligations in relation to obtaining administrative permits and keeping records on wages, for fines to be imposed:






—


which may not be lower than a predefined minimum amount;










—


which apply cumulatively in respect of each worker concerned and without an upper limit;










—


to which is added a contribution to court costs of 20 % of the amount of the fines if the appeal against the decision imposing those fines is dismissed, and










—


which are replaced by custodial sentences in the event of non-payment.






(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.
Case C-347/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam — Netherlands) — A, B, C, D, E, F, G v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Protection of health – Hygiene Package – Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 – Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 – Hygiene of food of animal origin – Poultry meat – Post-mortem inspection of carcasses – Visible contamination of a carcass – Zero-tolerance approach)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carcase, food contamination, food inspection, food safety, health control, meat processing industry, poultrymeat, slaughtered poultry








C_2019383EN.01000702.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/7






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam — Netherlands) — A, B, C, D, E, F, G v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
(Case C-347/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of health - Hygiene Package - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 - Hygiene of food of animal origin - Poultry meat - Post-mortem inspection of carcasses - Visible contamination of a carcass - Zero-tolerance approach)
(2019/C 383/06)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Rotterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: A, B, C, D, E, F, G

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, points 5 and 8, to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘contamination’ includes not only contamination by faeces, but also contamination by crop contents and by bile.










2.


Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, points 5 and 8, to Regulation No 853/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a poultry carcass must no longer contain any visible contamination after the cleaning stage and before the chilling stage.










3.


Annex I, Section I, Chapter II, Part D, point 1, to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 739/2011 of 27 July 2011, must be interpreted as not precluding the competent authority, for the purposes of inspecting poultry carcasses, from removing them from the slaughter line and carrying out both an external and internal examination of those carcasses, if necessary by lifting their fat tissue, provided that that examination does not go beyond what is necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of that control, which it is for the referring court to verify.






(1)  OJ C 300, 11.9.2017.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9443 — Cintra/Meridiam/AUSOL) (Text with EEA relevance.)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, motorway, toll, transport infrastructure








C_2019314EN.01000102.xml










18.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 314/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9443 — Cintra/Meridiam/AUSOL)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 314/02)
On 12 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 32019M9443. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case T-225/18: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Manéa v CdT (Civil service — Temporary members of staff — Fixed-term contract — Decision not to renew the applicant’s contract — Withdrawal of the decision and adoption of a new decision refusing renewal with effect from the date of the first decision — Liability)
Date: 2019-09-12
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, servant (EU), temporary employment, termination of employment, work contract








C_2019399EN.01004701.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/47






Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2019 — Manéa v CdT
(Case T-225/18) (1)

(Civil service - Temporary members of staff - Fixed-term contract - Decision not to renew the applicant’s contract - Withdrawal of the decision and adoption of a new decision refusing renewal with effect from the date of the first decision - Liability)
(2019/C 399/56)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Camelia Manéa (Echternach, Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas and M. Bertha, lawyers)

Defendant: Translation Centre for the bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: J. Rikkert and M. Garnier, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the CdT’s decision of 29 May 2017 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract, second, an order that the CdT is to reinstate her within the CdT, and, third, compensation for the material and non-material damage resulting from the loss of permanent employment and from the CdT’s decision of 12 November 2015 not to renew the applicant’s employment contract.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Ms Camelia Manéa to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 221, 25.6.2018.