do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-727/19 P: Appeal brought on 30 September 2019 by Guy Steifer against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-331/17, Steifer v EESC
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, European official, damages, retirement conditions, seniority, transfer of pension rights








C_2020036EN.01001601.xml










3.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 36/16






Appeal brought on 30 September 2019 by Guy Steifer against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 July 2019 in Case T-331/17, Steifer v EESC
(Case C-727/19 P)
(2020/C 36/20)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Appellant: Guy Steifer (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee
By order of 12 December 2019, the Court (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.
Case T-653/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: access to EU information, consumer information, freedom of self-determination, health risk, indemnification, legal aid, packaging, pharmaceutical industry, photograph, protection of privacy








C_2019399EN.01008501.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/85






Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission
(Case T-653/19)
(2019/C 399/104)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FF (represented by: A. Fittante, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the European Commission’s decision of 31 July 2019 rejecting the applicant’s first application of 9 July 2019 seeking compensation;










—


annul the European Commission’s decision of 20 August 2019 rejecting the application of 23 July 2019 for access to the Commission’s documents in which the applicant asks to consult the original of a photograph of a man whose leg has been amputated which was used as a health warning on the packaging of tobacco products in accordance with Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs and the expenses relating to the proceedings, while noting that the applicant has sought legal aid.





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 essential procedural requirements as the decisions at issue fail to comply with the obligation to state reasons and, therefore, do not allow the applicant to understand the scope of the decision taken against him and to ensure that his interests are defended and do not allow a court to verify whether that decision is lawful.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the treaties and every rule of law concerning the application of the latter, that is to say the body of rules of the European Union, and, in particular, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the general principles, the observance of which the European Union is obliged to ensure and which protect the right to protect one’s personal image, the right to respect for private and family life and the right to dignity.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019325EN.01000201.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/2






Euro exchange rates (1)

27 September 2019
(2019/C 325/02)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0935 




JPY


Japanese yen


118,21 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4661 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88778 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,7010 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0860 




ISK


Iceland króna


134,90 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9155 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,842 




HUF


Hungarian forint


335,54 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3865 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7515 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,1895 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6187 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4493 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5727 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7388 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5100 




KRW


South Korean won


1 310,45 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4831 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7947 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4083 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 489,43 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5796 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,736 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,3733 




THB


Thai baht


33,510 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5492 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,4640 




INR


Indian rupee


77,0685 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9467 — Ivanhoé Cambridge/PSPIB/Greystar/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 352/01
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, real estate business








C_2019352EN.01000101.xml










18.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9467 — Ivanhoé Cambridge/PSPIB/Greystar/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 352/01)
On 30 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 32019M9467. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-719/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 30 September 2019 – FS v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, freedom of movement, removal, residence permit








C_2020019EN.01001001.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 30 September 2019 – FS v Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
(Case C-719/19)
(2020/C 19/12)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: FS

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 15(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEG, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, (1) corrected by OJ 2004 L 229, OJ 2005 L 30, OJ 2005 L 197and OJ 2007 L 204) be interpreted as meaning that the decision to expel a Union citizen from the territory of the host Member State taken on the basis of that provision has been complied with and that that decision no longer has any legal effects once that Union citizen has demonstrably left the territory of that host Member State within the period for voluntary departure laid down in that decision?










2.


If Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative, does that Union citizen, in the event of an immediate return to the host Member State, have the right of residence of up to three months referred to in Article 6(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC, or may the host Member State take a new expulsion decision in order to prevent the Union citizen from entering the host Member State for a short period of time?










3.


If Question 1 must be answered in the negative, must that Union citizen in that case then reside outside the territory of the host Member State for a certain period of time and, if so, how long is that period?






(1)  p. 77.
Case T-680/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Irish Wind Farmers' Association and Others v Commission
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, business tax, control of State aid, electrical energy, fossil fuel, power plant, tax relief








C_2019423EN.01006201.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/62






Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Irish Wind Farmers' Association and Others v Commission
(Case T-680/19)
(2019/C 423/77)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Irish Wind Farmers' Association Clg (Kilkenny, Ireland), Carrons Windfarm Ltd (Shanagolden, Ireland), Foyle Windfarm Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), Greenoge Windfarm Ltd (Bunclody, Ireland) (represented by: M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:






—


annul Commission decision C(2019) 5257 final of 9 July 2019 - SA.44671 (2019/NN) – Ireland, concerning alleged illegal state aid granted to the fossil fuel sector in the form of reduced business rates;










—


order the Commission to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law, to the effect that the Commission failed to open the formal investigation under Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the Procedural Regulation, (1) notwithstanding doubts as to the existence of state aid, thereby depriving the applicants of their procedural rights.


(1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).
Case T-665/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, electronic publishing, exchange transaction, financial services, foreign currency, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2019399EN.01009101.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/91






Action brought on 30 September 2019 — Cinkciarz.pl v EUIPO (€$)
(Case T-665/19)
(2019/C 399/110)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


Applicant: Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: E. Skrzydło-Tefelska, legal counsel, and K. Gajek, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for EU figurative mark €$ — Application No 13 839 998

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2019 in Case R 1345/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of the first sentence of Article 94(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;










—


Infringement of Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 72(6) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(i) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-659/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 – FF Group Romania v EUIPO – KiK Textilien und Non-Food (_kix)
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, chain store, clothing, footwear industry, leather, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019383EN.01007802.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/78






Action brought on 30 September 2019 – FF Group Romania v EUIPO – KiK Textilien und Non-Food (_kix)
(Case T-659/19)
(2019/C 383/87)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: FF Group Romania SRL (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: A. Căvescu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KiK Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark _kix in colours black, white and green – Application for registration No 12 517 901

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 July 2019 in Case R 353/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs relating to the present action.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 94 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 95 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Rule 20(7)(c) of Regulation No 2868/95 (now Article 71(1) of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2018/625;










—


Infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95;










—


Infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, impartiality and equality;










—


Infringement of the right to be heard and the right to a fair trial;










—


Misuse of powers.
Case T-654/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: consumer information, freedom of self-determination, health risk, indemnification, legal aid, packaging, photograph, protection of privacy, tobacco industry








C_2019399EN.01008601.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/86






Action brought on 30 September 2019 — FF v Commission
(Case T-654/19)
(2019/C 399/105)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: FF (represented by: A. Fittante, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


find that the European Commission has interfered with his right to honour, his right to personal and family life, his right to protect his personal image and his right to dignity by using his image without his permission as one of the photographs proposed by the Commission to be used as health warnings to be included on the packaging of tobacco products in accordance with Commission Delegated Directive 2014/109/EU;










—


order that the use of the photograph at issue within the European Union cease immediately and that all tobacco products that are available for sale in the various establishments authorised to sell such products and contain the applicant’s image be withdrawn;










—


grant the applicant the right to increase his claim for compensation for non-material and financial damage after the issuance of an expert’s report requested in a separate action and the communication by the European Commission of the amount of packaging sold in the European Union with the image at issue;










—


order the European Commission to pay the costs and the expenses relating to the proceedings, while noting that the applicant has sought legal aid.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of his fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which grants to each person a right to respect for one’s dignity and the right to respect for one’s private and family life.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9491 — Ardagh Group/OTPP-Element/JV) (Text with EEA relevance) 2019/C 342/02
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, holding company, merger control, packaging product, pension scheme








C_2019342EN.01000201.xml










10.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 342/2






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.9491 — Ardagh Group/OTPP-Element/JV)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2019/C 342/02)
On 30 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 32019M9491. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Case C-720/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 September 2019 — GR v Stadt Duisburg
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), family migration, migrant worker, nationality








C_2020019EN.01001002.xml










20.1.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 19/10






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 September 2019 — GR v Stadt Duisburg
(Case C-720/19)
(2020/C 19/13)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: GR

Defendant: Stadt Duisburg

Questions referred







1.


Does a family member of a Turkish worker, who is able to derive from the latter rights under the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council (‘Decision No 1/80’), lose those rights if he acquires the nationality of the host Member State and loses his previous nationality?










2.


If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Can the family member of the Turkish worker in the situation described then continue to rely on the rights under Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 if he has lost the nationality of the host Member State because he has reacquired his previous nationality?
Case T-664/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO – Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, medical device, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019383EN.01007901.xml










11.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 383/79






Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Allergan Holdings France v EUIPO – Dermavita (JUVEDERM ULTRA)
(Case T-664/19)
(2019/C 383/88)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Allergan Holdings France (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: J. Day, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dermavita Co. Ltd (Beirut, Lebanon)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark JUVEDERM ULTRA – European Union trade mark No 6 295 638

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 July 2019 in Joined Cases R 1655/2018-4 and R 1723/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision insofar as it revokes the EUTM No. 6295638 JUVEDERM ULTRA for the contested goods;










—


order EUIPO and Dermavita Co. Ltd. to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Articles 58(1) and 64(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-663/19: Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Hasbro v EUIPO – Kreativni Dogadaji (MONOPOLY)
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, gaming, registered trade mark, toy industry, trade-mark law








C_2019413EN.01005801.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/58






Action brought on 30 September 2019 – Hasbro v EUIPO – Kreativni Dogadaji (MONOPOLY)
(Case T-663/19)
(2019/C 413/70)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: J. Moss, Barrister)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kreativni Dogadaji d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark MONOPOLY – European Union trade mark No 9 071 961

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 July 2019 in Case R 1849/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.





Pleas in law







—


Failure to properly apply Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing.
Special Report No 15/2019 — ‘Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission — Big savings but not without consequences for staff’
Date: 2019-09-30
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU expenditure, European Commission, European official, personnel administration, retirement conditions, servant (EU), staff regulations (EU), wage cost, working conditions








C_2019325EN.01000901.xml










30.9.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 325/9






Special Report No 15/2019
‘Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission — Big savings but not without consequences for staff’
(2019/C 325/06)
The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 15/2019, ‘Implementation of the 2014 staff reform package at the Commission — Big savings but not without consequences for staff’ has just been published.
The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu