do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-515/17 P and C-561/17 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 February 2020 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-515/17 P) and Republic of Poland v Uniwersytet Wrocławski and Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-561/17 P) (Appeal — Action for annulment — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union — Representation of parties in direct actions before the Courts of the European Union — Lawyer representing the applicant as a third party — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: admissibility, labour relations, legal adviser, right to justice, university








C_2020137EN.01000301.xml










27.4.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 137/3






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 February 2020 — Uniwersytet Wrocławski v Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-515/17 P) and Republic of Poland v Uniwersytet Wrocławski and Research Executive Agency (REA) (C-561/17 P)
(Joined Cases C-515/17 P and C-561/17 P) (1)

(Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union - Representation of parties in direct actions before the Courts of the European Union - Lawyer representing the applicant as a third party - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
(2020/C 137/03)
Language of the case: Polish

Parties


(Case C-515/17 P)


Appellant: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, adwokaci, and by K. Słomka, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, avocat, and G. Materna, radca prawny)

Intervener in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents)

(Case C-561/17 P)


Appellant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, D. Lutostańska and A. Siwek-Slusarek, acting as Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings: Uniwersytet Wrocławski (represented by: A. Krawczyk-Giehsmann and K. Szarek, adwokaci, and by K. Słomka, radca prawny) and Research Executive Agency (REA) (represented by: S. Payan-Lagrou and V. Canetti, acting as Agents, and by M. Le Berre, avocat, and G. Materna, radca prawny)

Interveners in support of the appellant: Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and A. Kasalická, acting as Agents) and Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych (represented by: P.K. Rosiak and S. Patyra, radcowie prawni)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 13 June 2017, Uniwersytet Wrocławski v REA (T-137/16, not published, EU:T:2017:407);










2.


Refers Case T-137/16 back to the General Court of the European Union;










3.


Reserves the costs.






(1)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2018.
Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (Official Journal of the European Union L 280 of 31 October 2019)
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, Taric, customs regulations, specification of tariff heading, tariff preference








L_2020031EN.01001001.xml










4.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 31/10







Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1776 of 9 October 2019 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 280 of 31 October 2019
)


On page 1030, the entry for Switzerland, in third column, is replaced with the following:


                  ‘Eidgenössische Zollverwaltung EZV — Sektion Tabak- und Biersteuer
Administration fédérale des douanes AFD — Section Impôts sur le tabac et sur la bière
Amministrazione federale delle dogane AFD — Sezione imposte sul tabacco e sulla birra
Federal Customs Administration FCA — Section Tobacco and Beer Tax’.
Case T-66/20: Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ LONDON)
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, floor coverings, furniture industry, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2020095EN.01004301.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/43






Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ LONDON)
(Case T-66/20)
(2020/C 95/52)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

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 HAUZ LONDON — Application for registration No 17 593 823

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 in Case R 884/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings, including those incurred before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case T-70/20: Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Metamorfoza v EUIPO — Tiesios kreivės (MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS)
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, education, museum, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020103EN.01003501.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/35






Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Metamorfoza v EUIPO — Tiesios kreivės (MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS)
(Case T-70/20)
(2020/C 103/49)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Metamorfoza d.o.o. (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: A. Bijelić, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiesios kreivės (Vilnius, Lithuania)

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 MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS — Application for registration No 17 263 336

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 December 2019 in Case R 663/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


to review the case and annul the contested decision.





Pleas in law







—


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










—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-59/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 4 February 2020 — DBKAG v Finanzamt Linz
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, investment company, provision of services, service, software, tax exemption








C_2020191EN.01000802.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 4 February 2020 — DBKAG v Finanzamt Linz
(Case C-59/20)
(2020/C 191/11)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: DBKAG

Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the tax exemption provided for by that provision, the term ‘management of special investment funds’ also includes the granting by a third-party licensor to an investment management company (‘IMC’) of a right to use specialist software specifically designed for the management of special investment funds where, as in the case in the main proceedings, that specialist software is intended exclusively to perform specific and essential activities in connection with the management of the special investment funds but runs on the technical infrastructure of the IMC and can perform its functions only subject to the minor participation of the IMC and subject to ongoing recourse to market data provided by the IMC?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case C-58/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 4 February 2020 — K v Finanzamt Linz
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, investment company, provision of services, service, tax exemption, tax on investment income








C_2020191EN.01000801.xml










8.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 191/8






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 4 February 2020 — K v Finanzamt Linz
(Case C-58/20)
(2020/C 191/10)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: K

Respondent authority: Finanzamt Linz

Question referred

Must Article 135(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘management of special investment funds’ also covers the tax-related responsibilities entrusted by the management company to a third party, consisting of ensuring that the income received by unit-holders from investment funds is taxed in accordance with the law?


(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Case T-65/20: Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Kneissl Holding v EUIPO — LS 9 (KNEISSL)
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, clothing, registered trade mark, sports equipment, trade-mark law








C_2020103EN.01003401.xml










30.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/34






Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Kneissl Holding v EUIPO — LS 9 (KNEISSL)
(Case T-65/20)
(2020/C 103/48)
Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties


Applicant: Kneissl Holding GmbH (Ebbs, Austria) (represented by: O. Nilgen and A. Kockläuner, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LS 9 GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark KNEISSL — EU trade mark No 291 377

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 November 2019 in Case R 2265/2018-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision in so far as it revoked EU trade mark No 291 377 KNEISSL for the following goods: ‘sports bags’ in Class 18 and ‘sportswear, leisurewear, weather protection clothing; ski suits; ski trousers; ski anoraks, underwear, headgear’ in Class 25, and dismiss the corresponding application for revocation;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Corrigendum to the Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (Official Journal of the European Union L 29 of 31 January 2020)
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: EAEC, United Kingdom, agreement (EU), withdrawal from the EU








L_2020032EN.01002001.xml










4.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 32/20







Corrigendum to the Notice concerning the entry into force of the Agreement on the Withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community

(
Official Journal of the European Union L 29 of 31 January 2020
)


On page 189:
for:







‘(1)


See page 189 of this Official Journal.’,





read:







‘(1)


See page 7 of this Official Journal.’.
Case T-68/20: Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ EST 1929)
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, floor coverings, furniture industry, registered trade mark, textile product, trade-mark law








C_2020095EN.01004402.xml










23.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 95/44






Action brought on 4 February 2020 — Hauz 1929 v EUIPO — Houzz (HAUZ EST 1929)
(Case T-68/20)
(2020/C 95/54)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Hauz 1929 Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Lyberis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Houzz, Inc. (Palo Alto, California, United States)

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 HAUZ EST 1929 — Application for registration No 17 636 119

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 November 2019 in Case R 885/2019-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


partially annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO and other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the applicant in the present proceedings, including those incurred before EUIPO.





Plea in law







—


Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operationsRate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.: 0,00 % on 1 February 2020 Euro exchange ratesSource: reference exchange rate published by the ECB. 3 February 20202020/C 37/03
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, financing, interest, money








C_2020037EN.01000301.xml










4.2.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 37/3






Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):
0,00 % on 1 February 2020
Euro exchange rates (2)

3 February 2020
(2020/C 37/03)

1 euro =











 


Currency


Exchange rate




USD


US dollar


1,1066 




JPY


Japanese yen


120,10 




DKK


Danish krone


7,4729 




GBP


Pound sterling


0,84775 




SEK


Swedish krona


10,6808 




CHF


Swiss franc


1,0672 




ISK


Iceland króna


137,30 




NOK


Norwegian krone


10,2590 




BGN


Bulgarian lev


1,9558 




CZK


Czech koruna


25,177 




HUF


Hungarian forint


337,70 




PLN


Polish zloty


4,2968 




RON


Romanian leu


4,7788 




TRY


Turkish lira


6,6221 




AUD


Australian dollar


1,6521 




CAD


Canadian dollar


1,4647 




HKD


Hong Kong dollar


8,5935 




NZD


New Zealand dollar


1,7106 




SGD


Singapore dollar


1,5138 




KRW


South Korean won


1 319,12 




ZAR


South African rand


16,4806 




CNY


Chinese yuan renminbi


7,7681 




HRK


Croatian kuna


7,4465 




IDR


Indonesian rupiah


15 207,45 




MYR


Malaysian ringgit


4,5526 




PHP


Philippine peso


56,293 




RUB


Russian rouble


70,5988 




THB


Thai baht


34,349 




BRL


Brazilian real


4,7170 




MXN


Mexican peso


20,8183 




INR


Indian rupee


79,0035 






(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Case C-811/18: Order of the President of the Court of 4 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias — Spain) — KA v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: equal treatment, maternity benefit, pension scheme, sexual discrimination








C_2020313EN.01001903.xml










21.9.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 313/19






Order of the President of the Court of 4 February 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias — Spain) — KA v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social
(Case C-811/18) (1)

(2020/C 313/25)
Language of the case: Spanish
The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 139, 15.4.2019.
Case C-56/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2020 — AR v Stadt Pforzheim
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European driving licence, administrative formalities, residence








C_2020209EN.01000401.xml










22.6.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/4






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2020 — AR v Stadt Pforzheim
(Case C-56/20)
(2020/C 209/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AR

Defendant: Stadt Pforzheim

Question referred

Does EU law, in particular Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences, (1) preclude provisions of national law under which, where a decision refusing to recognise the validity of a driving licence, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 11(4) of Directive 2006/126/EC, is adopted, the foreign EC card driving licence of a person who does not have normal residence in national territory must be submitted to the decision-making national authority without delay so that the latter can record in the driving licence that that person does not have a right to drive in national territory; the endorsement (indicating a ban) usually being entered on an EC card driving licence by affixing a red ‘D’, crossed out by a diagonal line, to space 13 (for example by means of a sticker)?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.
Case C-57/20: Action brought on 4 February 2020 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2020-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: VAT, farmer, flat-rate tax, small business, tax exemption, tax harmonisation








C_2020087EN.01001802.xml










16.3.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 87/18






Action brought on 4 February 2020 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-57/20)
(2020/C 87/23)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Pethke and J. Jokubauskaitė, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


declare that, by applying the flat-rate scheme to all farmers as a rule regardless of whether the application of the normal VAT arrangements or the special scheme for small enterprises would give rise to difficulties for them, and by applying a flat-rate compensation tax rate which leads to a structural over-compensation of the input tax paid, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its obligations under Articles 296(1) and 299 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)











—


order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.





Pleas in law and main arguments

First plea in law — Infringement of Article 296(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC
By its first plea in law, the Commission claims that, by applying the flat-rate scheme to all farmers regardless of any difficulties encountered by them in applying the normal VAT arrangements or the special scheme for small enterprises, the Federal Republic of Germany infringed Article 296(1) of Directive 2006/112.
According to Article 296 of Directive 2006/112, farmers who could benefit from the flat-rate scheme must be selected appropriately. Accordingly, as an eligibility criterion, eligible farmers would have to encounter difficulties in applying the normal VAT arrangements or the special scheme under Chapter 1. The Federal Republic of Germany failed to select eligible farmers on the basis of that eligibility criterion.
By its second plea in law, the Commission claims that the Federal Republic of Germany infringed Article 299 of Directive 2006/112 in that the flat-rate compensation tax rate applied by it results in a structural over-compensation of the input tax actually paid by flat-rate farmers.
In the calculation, the agricultural services provided by commercial contractors are deducted from the turnover of the whole agricultural sector, on the one hand, whilst only the input tax burden on farmers subject to the normal VAT arrangements, and not the input tax burden on commercial contractors, is deducted from the input tax burden on the whole agricultural sector, on the other. This leads to a structural over-compensation due to the reimbursement at a flat rate of the flat-rate farmers’ input tax.


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.