do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case C-522/18: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — DŚ v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle (Reference for a preliminary ruling — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: age discrimination, discretionary power, equal treatment, higher court, independence of the judiciary, judge, retirement conditions, right to justice, rule of law








C_2020313EN.01000202.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/2






Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 January 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — DŚ v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle
(Case C-522/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - No need to adjudicate)
(2020/C 313/03)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Najwyższy

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DŚ

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle

Intervener: Prokuratura Krajowa

Operative part of the order

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court, Poland), made by decision of 2 August 2018 in Case C-522/18.


(1)  OJ C 427, 26.11.2018.
Case C-46/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2020 — Z v Finanzamt G
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, goods and services, purchase, tax law, tax relief, tax return








C_2020191EN.01000501.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/5






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 29 January 2020 — Z v Finanzamt G
(Case C-46/20)
(2020/C 191/07)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Z

Defendant: Finanzamt G

Questions referred







1.


Does Article 168(a), read in conjunction with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) conflict with national case-law precluding the right to deduct VAT in cases in which the trader is entitled to choose the allocation of a supply at the time of purchase if the tax authorities have not adopted a decision on its allocation on expiry of the statutory deadline for submission of the annual VAT return?










2.


Does Article 168(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax conflict with national case-law whereby allocation to private assets is assumed or presumed in the absence of (sufficient) evidence for allocation to the assets of the business?






(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
Case T-471/18: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — WV v EEAS (Action for annulment — Civil service — Civil servants — Salary deductions — Unauthorised absences — Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to comply with formal requirements — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, access to EU information, data protection, deduction at source, personal data, principle of legal certainty, principle of proportionality, right to justice, rights of the defence, staff regulations (EU)








C_2020103EN.01003001.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/30






Order of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — WV v EEAS
(Case T-471/18) (1)

(Action for annulment - Civil service - Civil servants - Salary deductions - Unauthorised absences - Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure - Failure to comply with formal requirements - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)
(2020/C 103/42)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: WV (represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by S. Marquardt and R. Spac, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU seeking annulment, first, of the EEAS’s decision of 27 November 2017 imposing a salary deduction amounting to 72 calendar days and, second, in so far as necessary, the EEAS’s decision of 2 May 2018 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 3 January 2018.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded in law.










2.


WV is ordered to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.
Case T-239/19: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Vinos de Arganza v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (ENCANTO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark ENCANTO — Earlier national word mark BELCANTO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, wine








C_2020077EN.01004701.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/47






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Vinos de Arganza v EUIPO — Nordbrand Nordhausen (ENCANTO)
(Case T-239/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ENCANTO - Earlier national word mark BELCANTO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2020/C 77/66)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Vinos de Arganza, SL (Toral de los Vados, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 January 2019 (Case R 392/2018-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Nordbrand Nordhausen and Vinos de Arganza.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Dismisses the action;











2.



Orders Vinos de Arganza, SL, to pay the costs.







(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.
Case T-49/20: Action brought on 29 January 2020 — Rothenberger v EUIPO — Paper Point (ROBOX)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, hand tool, packaging product, plastics, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020087EN.01002602.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/26






Action brought on 29 January 2020 — Rothenberger v EUIPO — Paper Point (ROBOX)
(Case T-49/20)
(2020/C 87/32)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rothenberger AG (Kelkheim, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paper Point Snc di Daria Fabbroni e Simone Borghini (Arezzo, Italy)

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 word mark ROBOX — Application for registration No 16 462 971

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2019 in Case R 210/2019-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by EUIPO, and, in case the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal joins the proceedings, the intervener.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-402/18: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Aquino and Others v Parliament (Civil service — Strike action by interpreters — Measures for the requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament — No legal basis — Liability — Non-material damage)
Date: 2020-01-29
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: indemnification, information profession, legal basis, requisitioning of workers, strike








C_2020077EN.01004302.xml










9.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 77/43






Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2020 — Aquino and Others v Parliament
(Case T-402/18) (1)

(Civil service - Strike action by interpreters - Measures for the requisition of interpreters adopted by the European Parliament - No legal basis - Liability - Non-material damage)
(2020/C 77/62)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicants: Roberto Aquino (Brussels, Belgium) and the 25 and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau, T. Lazian and E. Taneva, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and R. Meyer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of 2 July 2018 of the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 3 July 2018 and of the subsequent decisions of the Parliament’s Director-General for Personnel requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 4, 5, 10 and 11 July 2018 and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 1 000 per person, which the applicants allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.



Annuls the decision of 2 July 2018 of the Director-General for Personnel of the European Parliament requisitioning interpreters and conference interpreters for 3 July 2018;











2.



Orders the Parliament to pay the sum of EUR 500 each to Barbara Carli-Ganotis, Claudine de Seze, Maria Corina Diaconu Olszewski, Maria Provata, Irène Sevastikoglou and Benedetta Tissi;











3.



Dismisses the action as to the remainder;











4.



Orders the Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants requisitioned by the decision of 2 July 2018, including the costs relating to the interim measures proceedings and those relating to the intervention of the Council of the European Union;











5.



Orders the applicants requisitioned by the decisions adopted after the action was brought to bear their own costs;











6.



Orders the Council to bear its own costs.







(1)  OJ C 364, 8.10.2018.