do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 2 October 20192019/C 332/05
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, money








C_2019332EN.01000501.xml










3.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 332/5






Euro exchange rates (1)

2 October 2019
(2019/C 332/05)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,0925 




JPY


Japanese yen


117,47 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4665 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,88970 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,8118 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0940 




ISK


Iceland króna


135,50 




NOK


Norwegian krone


9,9930 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,739 




HUF


Hungarian forint


334,05 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,3698 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7491 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,2595 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6351 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4467 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5666 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7512 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5137 




KRW


South Korean won


1 318,20 




ZAR


South African rand


16,6627 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,8096 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4150 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 516,78 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5825 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,806 




RUB


Russian rouble


71,2142 




THB


Thai baht


33,458 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,5516 




MXN


Mexican peso


21,6365 




INR


Indian rupee


77,8275 






(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case T-806/17: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA (REACH — Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 — Requirement for joint submission of data — Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out — Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance — Failure to reach an agreement — Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy — Decision granting access to a joint submission — Legal basis — Broad discretion of ECHA — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Legal certainty)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: chemical product, health control, health risk, market approval, marketing standard, principle of legal certainty, right to justice








C_2019423EN.01003302.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/33






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – BASF and REACH & colours v ECHA
(Case T-806/17) (1)

(REACH - Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Article 3(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/9 - Requirement for joint submission of data - Joint submission with possibility of a complete opt-out - Administrative practice of ECHA requiring an agreement on the terms for making a joint submission with the lead registrant for a registered substance - Failure to reach an agreement - Dispute resolution mechanism applied by analogy - Decision granting access to a joint submission - Legal basis - Broad discretion of ECHA - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Legal certainty)
(2019/C 423/41)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen-am-Rhein, Germany) and REACH & colours Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (REACH & colours Kft.) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: R. Cana, D. Abrahams, E. Mullier and H. Widemann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, C. Jacquet, and T. Basmatzi, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Decision DSH-30-3-0123-2017 of ECHA of 2 October 2017 granting Sustainability Support Services (Europe) AB access to the joint submission lodged by REACH & colours, as lead registrant for the substance hexasodium 2,2'-[vinylenebis[(3-sulphonato-4,1-phenylene)imino[6-(diethylamino)-1, 3, 5-triazine-4,2-diyl]imino]]bis(benzene-1,4-disulphonate), EC No 255-217-5 and CAS No 41098-56-0.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders BASF SE, REACH & colours Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. (REACH & colours Kft.) and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear their own costs.







(1)  OJ C 52, 12.2.2018.
Case C-197/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, Robert Prandl, Gemeinde Zillingdorf (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Objective of reducing pollution — Waters affected by pollution — Maximum nitrate level of 50 mg/l — Action programmes adopted by the Member States — Rights of individuals to have such a programme amended — Locus standi before the national authorities and courts)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: chemical salt, environmental monitoring, groundwater, pollution control, pollution from agricultural sources, right of action, water pollutant, water pollution, water protection








C_2019413EN.01000901.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/9






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien — Austria) — Proceedings brought by Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, Robert Prandl, Gemeinde Zillingdorf
(Case C-197/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Objective of reducing pollution - Waters affected by pollution - Maximum nitrate level of 50 mg/l - Action programmes adopted by the Member States - Rights of individuals to have such a programme amended - Locus standi before the national authorities and courts)
(2019/C 413/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Wasserleitungsverband Nördliches Burgenland, Robert Prandl, Gemeinde Zillingdorf

Intervener: Bundesministerum für Nachhaltigkeit und Tourismus, formerly Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft

Operative part of the judgment

Article 288 TFEU and Article 5(4) and (5) of, and Annex I A, point 2 to, Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources must be interpreted as meaning that, provided that the discharge of nitrogen compounds of agricultural origin significantly contributes to the pollution of the groundwaters in question, natural and legal persons, such as the applicants in the main proceedings, should be in a position to require the competent national authorities to amend an existing action programme or adopt additional measures or reinforced actions, provided for in Article 5(5) of that directive, as long as the nitrate levels in the groundwaters exceed or could exceed, in the absence of such measures, 50 mg/l at one or more measuring points within the meaning of Article 5(6) of that directive.


(1)  OJ C 268, 30.7.2018.
Case T-491/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Meatlove — Earlier EU word mark carnilove — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, dietary product, fodder, food supplement, foodstuff, registered trade mark, retail trade, trade-mark law, wholesale trade








C_2019423EN.01004002.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/40






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — Vafo Praha v EUIPO — Rutzinger-Kurpas (Meatlove)
(Case T-491/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Meatlove - Earlier EU word mark carnilove - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2019/C 423/50)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vafo Praha s.r.o. (Chrášt’any, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Vojáček, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas (Spiegelau, Germany) (represented by: F. Lichtnecker, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 June 2018 (Case R 264/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Vafo Praha and Ms Rutzinger-Kurpas.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 12 June 2018 (Case R 264/2018-4);











2.



Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Vafo Praha s.r.o.;











3.



Orders Ms Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas to bear her own costs.







(1)  OJ C 352, 1.10.2018.
Case C-621/17: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gyula Kiss v CIB Bank Zrt., Emil Kiss, Gyuláné Kiss (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 3(1) — Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms — Article 4(2) — Article 5 — Requirement that contractual terms be drafted in plain and intelligible language — Terms requiring the payment of costs for unspecified services)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, cost of borrowing, provision of services, unfair terms of contract








C_2019413EN.01000301.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/3






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — Gyula Kiss v CIB Bank Zrt., Emil Kiss, Gyuláné Kiss
(Case C-621/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 3(1) - Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms - Article 4(2) - Article 5 - Requirement that contractual terms be drafted in plain and intelligible language - Terms requiring the payment of costs for unspecified services)
(2019/C 413/03)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Gyula Kiss

Defendants: CIB Bank Zrt., Emil Kiss, Gyuláné Kiss

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4(2) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement that a contractual term be drafted in plain, intelligible language does not require that non-individually negotiated contractual terms in a loan contract concluded with a consumer, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, that specify the exact amount of management charges and of a disbursement commission to be borne by the consumer, their method of calculation and the time when they have to be paid, also have to indicate all of the services provided in return for the amounts concerned;










2.


Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual term such as that at issue in the main proceedings in relation to charges for the management of a loan contract, when it cannot be unequivocally determined what specific services are provided in return for those charges, does not in principle cause, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.






(1)  OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.
Case C-378/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen v Reinhard Westphal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Article 3(1) — Limitation period — Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92 and (EC) No 2419/2001 — Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes — Recovery of undue payments — Application of the more lenient limitation rule)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, administrative sanction, aid to agriculture, control of State aid, limitation of legal proceedings, retroactivity of a law








C_2019413EN.01001701.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/17






Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen v Reinhard Westphal
(Case C-378/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Article 3(1) - Limitation period - Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92 and (EC) No 2419/2001 - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Recovery of undue payments - Application of the more lenient limitation rule)
(2019/C 413/19)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Landwirtschaftskammer Niedersachsen

Defendant: Reinhard Westphal

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49(6) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 118/2004 of 23 January 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the starting point of the limitation period which it lays down is determined in accordance with Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests and corresponds, in the case of continuous or repeated irregularities, to the day on which the irregularity ceases.


(1)  OJ C 301, 27.8.2018.
Case T-666/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Figurative mark ad pepper — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, Internet site, advertising, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019423EN.01004601.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/46






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 — 6Minutes Media v EUIPO — ad pepper media International (ad pepper)
(Case T-666/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Figurative mark ad pepper - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 18(1)(a) and Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)
(2019/C 423/57)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: 6Minutes Media GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch and T. Hilser, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: ad pepper media International NV (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Lux, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 June 2018 (Case R 839/2017-1), relating to revocation proceedings between 6Minutes Media and ad pepper media International.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders 6Minutes Media GmbH to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.
Case T-533/18: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group (WANDA FILMS) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark WANDA FILMS — Earlier EU word mark WANDA — Relative ground for refusal — Restriction of the application for registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, audiovisual equipment, education, electronic device, film industry, publishing, registered trade mark, satellite navigation, signalling device, trade-mark law








C_2019423EN.01004301.xml










16.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 423/43






Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2019 – Wanda Films and Wanda Visión v EUIPO – Dalian Wanda Group (WANDA FILMS)
(Case T-533/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark WANDA FILMS - Earlier EU word mark WANDA - Relative ground for refusal - Restriction of the application for registration - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2019/C 423/53)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: Wanda Films, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) and Wanda Visión, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón) (represented by: C. Planas Silva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Sipos and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd (Dalian, China) (represented by: M. Hawkins, Solicitor, and by T. Dolde and K. Lüder, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 June 2018 (Case R 401/2017-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Dalian Wanda Group and Wanda Films.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Wanda Films, SL and Wanda Visión, SA to pay the costs, including those incurred by Dalian Wanda Group Co. Ltd for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).







(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.
Case C-42/18: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Trier v Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Exemptions — Article 13B(d)(3) — Transactions concerning payments — Services supplied by a company to a bank relating to the operation of cash points)
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, bank, electronic banking, electronic money, provision of services, tax exemption








C_2019413EN.01000601.xml










9.12.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 413/6






Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 October 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Trier v Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH
(Case C-42/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Exemptions - Article 13B(d)(3) - Transactions concerning payments - Services supplied by a company to a bank relating to the operation of cash points)
(2019/C 413/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Finanzamt Trier

Defendant: Cardpoint GmbH, successor in law to Moneybox Deutschland GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 13B(d)(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that services supplied to a bank operating cashpoints, consisting in operating and maintaining those cashpoints, replenishing them, installing computer hardware and software necessary to read the data from bank cards, sending a cash withdrawal authorisation request to the bank which issued the bank card used, providing the cash requested and registering withdrawal transactions, do not constitute a transaction concerning payments which is exempt from value added tax for the purposes of that provision.


(1)  OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.
Case C-730/19: Action brought on 3 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
Date: 2019-10-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Yugoiztochen (Bulgaria), air quality, atmospheric pollutant, environmental protection, environmental standard, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, pollution control, prevention of pollution, sulphur








C_2019399EN.01003401.xml










25.11.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 399/34






Action brought on 3 October 2019 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
(Case C-730/19)
(2019/C 399/40)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Y. Marinova and E. Manhaeve)

Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, (1) in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, by systematically and continuously exceeding in zone BG0006 (South-East):






(i)


the hourly limit values for SO2 as from 2007;










(ii)


the daily limit values for SO2 as from 2007, with the exception of 2010 and 2012;














—


declare that, as from 11 June 2010, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations in accordance with Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, and in particular its obligation in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) to ensure as short as possible a period in which the abovementioned limit values for SO2 in zone BG0006 (South-East) are exceeded;










—


order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First, the Commission claims that Bulgaria has infringed the provisions of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Annex XI to that directive, in so far as it has systematically and continuously exceeded, in zone BG0006 (South-East), the hourly and daily limit values for SO2.
Secondly, the Commission maintains that Bulgaria has infringed the provisions of the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC, in conjunction with Section A of Annex XV to that directive, in so far as, as from 11 June 2010, it has not included in its air quality plans any appropriate measures intended to ensure that the period during which the limit values are exceeded is as short as possible.


(1)  Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1)